I’ve been a fairly regular writer of Letters to the Editor since the mid-1990s, with not a bad “hit rate”. The following are some that didn’t make it to publication, either because they weren’t up to scratch, the moment had passed, there wasn’t enough space, the subject matter was “inconvenient”, or … they weren’t up to scratch.
Pointless leaving them sitting on my hard drive, and I don’t want them lost, so here they are in case anyone would like to read them, with the date of submission and the paper they were sent to. (It’s also possible that some actually *were* published, and I simply missed them – no criticism is intended or implied in any event …)
Getting GW Reports Published (Dominion Post, 5
June 2008)
I suggest
that Dr XXX (June 2) read the recent study "Scared to Death" by
Christopher Booker and Richard North: there are indeed reports disputing
anthropogenic global warming, but far from becoming rich beyond their wildest
dreams, their authors face an academic "closed shop" that makes it
difficult for them even to get funding or find a willing publisher.
A slightly less emotionally charged view of the recent panel discussion on
Prime may be found on the website of the Grumpy Old Geezers at gog.org.nz.
Yours etc.,
The Great Global Warming Swindle (NZ Listener,
26 May 2008)
They say
that when you point a finger at someone, there are three pointing back at
you. A look at the "seven major misrepresentations" in The
Great Global Warming Swindle at www.climateofdenial.net
shows that Martin Durkin did indeed offer a point-by-point rebuttal of the
objections raised by Bob Ward, in which his replies were not abusive or
evasive, as readers of your "Ecologic" column (May 31) might be led
to believe. Now who's being selective?
Your attempt to sway viewer opinion before the programme is even shown is also
rather mischievous in overlooking some of its key messages:
- The cost of blindly following excessive rrecommendations to try to slow global
warming, especially for developing countries;
- The misrepresentation and outright doctorring involved in the IPCC reports and
summaries;
- The historical data - showing the temperaatures during the Mediaeval Warming
period that were higher than now, for instance - which those who have swallowed
the IPCC line (and hook and sinker, perhaps?) conveniently ignore;
- The fact that human influence on Global WWarming has become an article of
faith to many believers, who would no more debate the issue than a
fundamentalist would debate the existence of God.
The statement that the version to be shown on Prime in June is
"abridged" is also somewhat disconcerting - shouldn't viewers be
allowed to see the entire content rather than a version that has been cut, and
may be no more authentic than an IPCC report as a consequence?
Having viewed the DVD, I would suggest that the only "problem" with
the documentary is that it offers a view contrary to a lot of vested interests
and what many would like to consider the established orthodoxy. Not an
easy position to be in, as Galileo could have told us. Surely, any
science that says you must conform to an established line if you want to get
your work published has ceased to be proper science and has instead become very
dangerous dogma.
The questionable science, selectivity and fraud used to support the hijacking
of natural global warming cycles for political ends are nicely dealt with in an
extensive chapter of "Scared To Death - From BSE to Global Warming: Why
Scares are Costing Us the Earth", by Booker and North. Those who are
still not convinced that they're being conned should give it a read.
Yours etc.
Climate change would-be censors (NZ Listener, 4
May 2008)
Strange,
but I don't recall ever seeing a letter from a man-made global warming agnostic
calling for the believers to be banned from publication or otherwise silenced,
yet the shrill calls from the adherents of the new religion to have the
"skeptics" shut out are deafening. Just what are these folks
afraid of?
Yours etc.,
Climate change: Natural reactions &
Doubting the doubters (NZ Listener, 13 April 2008)
Assuming it
is possible in the first place to reduce the man-made Global Warming debate to
two opposing camps, it was an interesting exercise to compare the styles of the
two contrary articles published in your April 19 issue. The
"anti" article was unemotional, offering facts and interpretations,
while the "pro" article seemed to be devoted largely to ad hominem
attacks on the opposition, with the now familiar techniques of ridicule and
generalisation. In that respect, the contributing authors managed to sum
up the present state of the debate rather nicely.
Yours etc.,
A curious invasion (NZ Listener, 2 February
2008)
XXX
(Letters, 9 February) has a curious understanding either of history or the
concept of invasion - I thought that one could only "invade" a
territory that was not already one's own, e.g.
Yours etc.,
Substitute swear words (Dominion Post, 17 March
2008)
The problem
with the substitute swear words that Linley Boniface suggests - truck, etc.
(March 17) - is that they are too close to the originals for comfort, for
either the speaker or the hearer. I'm currently trialling some completely
made-up expletives ("sploon" and "floob" seem to work
rather well as expressions of shock or amazement, for instance), although the
real thing still slips out occasionally. After another driver failed to
give way at a nearby junction some time ago, my daughter, then about seven,
asked innocently, "Did you just call him a Household?" Well,
no, not quite, but maybe there's room for this, too, to become a 'household'
word of the sort under discussion.
Yours etc.,
Anti-smacker's hypocrisy (Dominion Post, 5
March 2008)
XXX, the
latest to admit in public that he can't tell the difference between a smack on
the hand and vicious assault (Letters, March 5), wants to "do"
something to those who signed the recent petition to Parliament. I
presume that, to avoid an accusation of hypocrisy, he wishes to negotiate with
us, or perhaps give us time out ...
Yours etc.,
Global warming and the scientific consensus
(Dominion Post, 4 January 2008)
The authors
of "Unstoppable Global Warming - every 1500 years" point out that, in
the past million years, we have had some 600 global warming and cooling cycles
lasting between 1000 and 2000 years each, and that there is very little to
indicate that the current cycle is any different to the previous 599 or
more. They conclude with the following comments, which we should all
consider very carefully before submitting to any governmental or other
"policy" that intends to dig into our pockets or reduce our standard
of living on the pretext of trying to combat nature:
"Human society should attempt to put binding constraints on human
emissions of greenhouse gases only if the advocates of man-made warming can
demonstrate three things:
"1. That the greenhouse gases are certain to raise global temperatures
significantly higher than they rose during previous natural climate warming
cycles;
"2. That the warming would severely harm human welfare and the ecology;
"3. That rational human actions could actually forestall such overheating.
"To date, the advocates of man-made warming have not been able to meet any
of these minimum requirements. [...]"
We have much more to fear from the cooling part of the cycle, presumably
several hundred years hence.
There may be a scientific consensus that global warming is happening - just as
it has many times before - but there is certainly no scientific consensus to
support any implication that it's all our fault, or that we can do anything to
stop it. A careful distinction needs to be made between these two
notions, even though some may find it an "inconvenient truth".
Yours etc.,
To the point: Masterton smacking case (Dominion
Post, 29 November 2007)
Once again,
the Courts have told a small boy that he can be naughty and his parents can't
lift a finger to stop him. Well done, guys.
Yours etc.,
Turning the clock back (Dominion Post, 27
October 2007)
XXX
(Letters, October 27) cogently argues that the clock should not be turned back
to restore historical land ownership and thus undo centuries of migration and
occupation. I presume that, to be consistent, he also opposes the idea of
turning the clock back 60 years to restore the territory covered by Israel to
its previous occupants ...
Yours etc.,
The carbon faithful and heresy (Dominion Post,
16 October 2007)
Reading the
squeals in the Letters column from the carbon faithful, I get the impression
they wouldn't mind seeing us non-believers all burnt at the stake - if it
weren't for the risk of generating more carbon emissions in the process ...
Yours etc.,
State Insurance (Dominion Post, 17 September
2007)
I’ve long
suspected that State Insurance has a note on my file saying: "Stuff this
person around whenever you deal with him". In recent years, State has
failed to record a change of location of insured goods; cancelled the policy on
a car after assuring me it was still covered, with the result that I was
driving an uninsured vehicle for several weeks (then tried to deny it was
insured at all, despite my holding the paperwork); lost a refund on a property
that was sold (which one dedicated staff member did manage to track down in the
end); got house and car details wrong when reorganising the system; and sent
out a policy renewal containing the wrong name of the insured party.
Given the length of time it takes to get a real human on the phone and the
lengthy recorded messages on States answering system, I wish I had thought of J
Lawrence's highly efficient approach of contacting them via the Letters column
of the Dominion Post instead (Letters, September 17).
Yours etc.,
Nukes and non-nukes (Dominion Post, 1 September
2007)
Sorry, Mr XXX
(Letters, 1 Sep), I'm a bit slow on the uptake sometimes. I should have
realised that mass civilian slaughter is perfectly acceptable as long as no
nukes are involved. Otherwise why would we sit back and let the habit
continue to this day in places like
Yours etc.,
Introducing more problems (Dominion Post, 25
June 2007)
I know you
have the right to edit letters, but adding a grammatical problem to a letter on
grammar is a bit on the nose! When a sentence starts with "those who"
(i.e. a plural), the correct following pronoun is "they" (plural) as
I originally wrote (Letters, June 21), not "s/he", as inserted by
someone prior to publication, which is singular in all senses of the word.
Yours etc.,
Water meters and education (Upper Hutt Leader,
11 June 2007)
I see that
the Chamber of Commerce wishes to "educate" the public about the need
for water metering. The idea has a very Maoist ring to it - is it
proposing to build special camps for the purpose, I wonder?
If water becomes a pay-as-you-use commodity, our rates will have completed
their transition from what used to be known as the "water rate" to a
straight real estate tax; perhaps ratepayers - sorry, real estate taxpayers -
should use the longer expression to remind themselves of what they are really
paying, and of the arrogance of an entity that believes it can
"educate" the public out of its opposition to an unpopular project.
Yours etc.,
The sin of split infinitives (Dominion Post, 15
June 2007)
Those who
still think that "split infinitives" are a mortal sin (Letters, June
15) might do well to read what Fowler and Partridge have to say on the subject
before condemning every occurrence. They may even learn something!
If I said "so bloody what?", would that be a split interjection?
Yours etc.,
Pedestrian crossings (Dominion Post, 4 May
2007)
The writer
who recently complained about pedestrians rushing onto crossings might like to
reflect that his eyes and the car's brakes can sometimes be used in combination,
to useful effect. It is not up to every other entity on the planet to get
out of the way as soon as someone gets behind the wheel.
When walking in
Yours etc.,
If Sue
Bradford insists that parents who smack their children (as opposed to those who
beat them violently) will not be punished under her proposed law change, why
won't she put that in writing?
Yours etc.,
What a difference a comma makes (Dominion Post,
5 April 2007)
A recent
e-mail from Sue Bradford tells us there is a difference between domestic
violence and domestic discipline. This is welcome news, as it was not
previously clear that she understood this herself.
However, an ill-placed comma in the Explanatory Note to her Bill implies that
all force against children will be outlawed if the Bill becomes law, rather
than just force used under the pretence [sic] of domestic discipline. I
suspect that moving the comma in question to a more appropriate place (those
old enough to have been taught the usefulness of careful punctuation will understand)
will make many people rather happier.
Then again, in the light of Ms Bradford's revelation, might it not be simpler
to redefine "reasonable force" to exclude the whip and plank-wielding
nutters, and leave Section 59 alone?
Yours etc.,
Smacking: analogy of force against adults
(Dominion Post, 28 March 2007)
Given that
it is perfectly legal for the police to use force to maintain order, the
argument that "you can't use force against adults, so why should you
against children" immediately loses all validity.
It would be preposterous to remove that right from the police: can you imagine
an officer pleading with a wrongdoer to please get in the car and report to the
station, but having no power to enforce the request?
The oft-arrested Ms Bradford should have spotted that little inconsistency long
ago.
Yours etc.,
Off-duty police (Dominion Post, 14 March 2007)
I'm not
sure what horrifies me more: a mother trivialising her son's vandalism and
thereby essentially encouraging him to do more of the same, or a policeman
being censured for stopping him in the act. What next? Black marks
for doctors who save someone's life outside of working hours?
Yours etc.,
Making parents feel good (Dominion Post, 23
February 2007)
XXX (Feb
22) claims that parents smack their children to make themselves feel
better. I don't know where he did his research to obtain this curious
information, but I guess I feel good that my kids have started to learn about
negative consequences at an early age, rather than leaving it up to the police
and the courts when it's far too late.
Yours etc.,
Defending one’s home (
If someone
enters my home unlawfully and threatens me or my family, I will not waste
valuable seconds trying to assess what would constitute a minimum necessary
level of force - I will avail myself of any object within reach to assist in
ejecting the intruder, regardless of whether he leaves upright or on a
stretcher. If the law says that thugs are entitled to any comeback in such
a situation, then it is an ass.
Common sense - that rare commodity these days - says that no homeowner will
need to "assault" you if you don't enter illegally in the first
place.
Yours etc.,
Limited summer samples (Dominion Post, 14
January 2007)
Looking for
the ten hottest summers in the past 150 years (Letters, January 13) ensures
that conclusions are based on an inadequate sample. What about casting
the net rather wider, to include summers worldwide for the past 1000 years or
so? That would then take into account the last major cycle of warming
that the planet went through, before the "mini Ice Age" that lasted
from about 1400 to 1750. Or would that be too inconvenient?
Yours etc.,
Latest global warming con (Dominion Post, 7
November 2006)
During a
previous cycle of global warming, between about AD 900 and 1400, average
temperatures were rather higher than they are today, to the extent that areas
of Greenland that are now under permafrost were being actively farmed. I
don't recall reading of any major climate-based catastrophes occurring then,
but I'm open to correction. I suspect that the start of the 300-year
"mini Ice Age" that followed would have caused more economic
hardship.
Yours etc.,
To the Point (Dominion Post, 17 September 2006)
I'm
astounded that commentators should think that a supposed liar and
cheat has no place in Parliament. On the contrary, if the accusations
prove false, he should be encouraged to leave forthwith.
Yours etc.,
Macdonald's and obesity (Dominion Post, 10
September 2006)
Macdonald's
has never abducted people and force-fed them burgers, nuggets or
fries. To claim that the company is responsible for obesity and early death
merely encourages the weak-willed to blame others for their own failings and
gluttony.
Yours etc.,
Wiig’s “conversion” (Dominion Post, 2 September
2006)
The
"conversion" of the kidnapped journalists to Islam at gunpoint is
a timely reminder of what the rest of us can look forward to if the
mad mullahs ever come to stay.
Yours etc.,
To the Point (9 August 2006)
I trust
that some kind Japanese artist is currently working on a Peace Statue to be
donated to
Yours etc.,
The day
after the State of Israel was declared in May 1948, it was invaded
by five Arab countries and has been in a state of siege since then. This does
not tally with Omar Khamoun's view (Letters, July 28) that "
attacking its neighbours ever since it was created". The historical
fact of
Arab aggression and terrorism is highly inconvenient for anti-Israel
propagandists.
Yours etc.,
"
To avert
the risk of nuclear attack (and presumably sunshine), we declared ourselves a
Nuclear-Free city. This has largely proved effective so far, although
sunlight does still sneak through occasionally. Emboldened by this
success, we will now be protected from conflict of all kinds thanks to the new
wonder slogan
Yours etc.,
Punishing the accusers (Dominion Post, 5 April
2006)
If anyone
were to accuse my child of bullying, my child would have me and his mother to
answer to in the first instance. It is preposterous that a parent whose
child was so accused should have the accuser arrested ("Bully victim's
father charged", April 4) rather than dealing with the substance of the
accusation. As one who spent much of his time at school dodging thugs and
miscreants, I find the modern "easy option" of punishing the
aggrieved party quite abhorrent.
Bullies are getting the message all right - that they can do what they damn
well please and the law, and their parents, will be on their side.
Yours etc.
It is
amusing that the billion dollars needed to comply with
Yours etc.,
Punishing gas guzzlers or milking the drivers
again? (Dominion Post, 25 January 2006)
If drivers
are likely to be penalised yet again, this time based on the size of their
cars' engines (Jan 25), I trust that some consideration will be given to actual
use: there is surely a vast difference in absolute fuel consumption (and other
alleged problems such as exhaust emissions) between a "guzzler" that
is driven 20,000 km a year and an equivalent vehicle that does only 2,000 km a
year, for instance. Many older, "classic" vehicles in
particular are limited to low annual mileages under the terms of their
insurance, and their minimal use should be acknowledged.
My fuel log shows that I tanked up my 4-litre Armstrong Siddeley four times in
the past year, and drove about a thousand miles during that time. I can
hardly have drained the country's fuel resources in the process.
Yours etc.,
PC vs. politeness (Dominion Post, 8 November
2005)
A recent
correspondent claimed that "political correctness" was nothing more
than old-fashioned politeness under a new name. If it were, I doubt there
would be any complaints about it. PC goes beyond the needs of politeness,
obliging speakers and writers to keep one eye over their shoulders at all times
in case they say or write anything that someone may decide to construe as an
affront, real or imagined. A side effect of this is an even greater
emphasis on form over content, as it is the words rather than the message that
then become the focus of interest.
I knew my days as a civil servant were numbered when I was told I could not
refer to an obviously male subject as "a man who ..." because it
wasn't politically correct. That isn't politeness, it's lunacy.
Yours etc.,
Gates, barriers, and vigilance (Dominion Post,
1 November 2005, unsent)
A few
months ago, my son, then not quite four, came close to being mashed when he ran
out in front of a bus. The driver stopped in good time, fortunately, but
everyone received a huge shock at what a near miss he had had, not least my
boy, who now reminds his pre-school classmates to wait at the kerb when leaving
school.
I could have spent the last six months campaigning to have millions spent
erecting barriers along every metre of Upper Hutt's streets to prevent a
similar risk - or worse - for others, but I have not, and not only because of
the sheer impracticality of the exercise. Firstly, a fence would pose a
challenge to most children over the age of about three, who might not otherwise
have been interested in crossing the boundary it marked; secondly, I believe
that barricading every potential danger is more likely to have the reverse
effect: if there is no perceived danger, we cease to be vigilant and are more
likely to be hit by that train or bus because we expect the barriers to do our
thinking for us. Tragic accidents will always be with us, but the way to
avert them is by education and vigilance, not still more cotton wool.
Yours etc.,
Maori and French (Dominion Post, 8 September
2005)
XXX’s analogy
(September 8) between pronouncing "Paris" in the French manner while
in France and pronouncing Maori words the Maori way when speaking English is
based on flawed logic. It would be more appropriate to find out whether
the French are required to pronounce words from their minority languages, such
as Breton and Basque, in a non-French manner when speaking French. The
occasional pedant might do so, but I would be surprised if the practice were
generalised.
Yours etc.,
I trust the
people who are off to pay their respects in Hiroshima will demonstrate their
sense of balance by going to China in a couple of years to remember the far
greater number of civilians murdered by Japanese forces in Nanjing. The
70th anniversary of that particular atrocity should not be allowed to slip past
unnoticed.
Yours etc.,
Fanning the flames ... (Dominion Post, 30 July
2005)
Are those
who see nothing wrong with mass immigration the same people who believe that
the overwhelming of the Maori culture, language and gene pool was a terrible
tragedy?
Yours etc.,
Gidday New Zild (Dominion Post, 15 June 2005,
unsent)
While I
applaud XXX’s diatribe against lazy speech, I find his theory of sound
articulation a little dodgy: t and d are articulated in exactly the same way,
the only difference being that t is unvoiced and d is voiced. There is no
need to "position the tongue more precisely" at all to say
"congratulations" instead of "congradulations". In
fact, far from being lazy, it probably requires more effort to pronounce a d,
given the need to use your vocal cords in the process! The palatalisation
needed to produce "congradjerlations" would be a different story, of
course ...
Yours etc.,
Pronouncing Maori names in English (Dominion
Post, 20 March 2005, unsent)
When
speaking English, I will use and pronounce Maori words in the Maori manner if
Dr Sharples and others can guarantee that English words borrowed into Maori are
given the same consideration. Of course this will impede the smooth flow
of Maori speech, but then smooth English discourse would also be impossible if
every foreign word and name had to be treated in accordance with its original
rules of grammar and pronunciation.
Yours etc.,
Flag (Dominion Post, 20 March 2005, unsent)
I see that
the dreary subject of changing the flag has made another of its periodic
reappearances. One objection to our otherwise quite distinctive flag is
that it may conceivably be confused with that of one other country. Can
those to whom this argument matters honestly say that they can remember which
permutation of colours and stripes belongs to which continental European flag,
or which coloured background goes with an otherwise similar-looking cross on
the flags of the various Scandinavian nations? I can't, without referring
to a textbook. Let's be honest - we're lucky to have only one vaguely
similar flag in the neighbourhood.
Adopt a design that will be lost among the swirls and lines of a hundred former
colonies, however, and anonymity will be guaranteed.
Yours etc.
Incorrect indicating at roundabouts (AA
Directions, 28 January 2005)
I would be
interested in any suggestions as to what can be done to discourage drivers from
indicating a right turn when they intend to drive straight ahead at
roundabouts. Apart from being pointless, it is both frustrating and
misleading to drivers facing the opposite way who find themselves giving way
unnecessarily. As the majority of drivers seem to get it wrong (here in
Maybe a few warning notices or judicious tickets might help, though I don't
know how well that would go down with the policeman and the driving instructor
whom I observed committing this particular act of carelessness a while ago.
Yours etc.,
Religious/racial intolerance (Dominion Post, 24
November 2004, unsent)
If we seek
reasons for the recent desecration of Jewish graves we should look further than
just the Prime Minister's criticism of
Yours etc.,
Re-zoning Health Centre carpark (
If the
notion of re-(re-?)-zoning the carpark by the Health Centre as a residential
area is ultimately adopted, will the former residents who were kicked out by
way of compulsory purchase orders in the 1970s be given right of first
purchase? My parents bought their first home there in 1957 and had to
resettle in 1975 with their teenage family to make way for mall
carparking. It would appear from family correspondence that their time
there was overshadowed by the threat of re-zoning for public parking at regular
intervals from as early as 1963.
I do feel that surviving former residents whose lives were turned upside down
by this development 30 years ago will take a dim view of moves to change this
site back again.
Yours etc.,
Smacking - your editorial, 3 December (Dominion
Post, 3 December 2002, unsent)
Where did
you get the notion (Editorial, 3 December) that smacking represents a momentary
loss of control? If that were really the case, I think we would all be
against it. A smack should be a tool, applied in perfect control when a line in
the sand has been crossed - it's when control is lost that there is a risk of
injury, surely.
Children are not stupid, for the most part, and will soon learn what behaviour
is acceptable and what is not, as long as the boundaries are clearly
defined. They will occasionally test them, of course: my daughter knows
that repeatedly ignoring a request will earn her a tap on the hand, and it is
now rarely necessary for us to reach that point.
Yours etc.,