Keeping the peace (in your world )

We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. Acts 15 v 24

Not everyone who speaks to you and disturbs or upsets you is "authorized" to do so..

Do you allow people to upset you? While every person is deserving of consideration and it is a wonderful show of empathy to try and understand why they may be feeling the way they do and what the underlying cause.might be, you don't need to allow them to "dump" on you.

This is because not every person carries authority from those who's opinions you do value. I'm not talking here about those times we develop blind spots in our lives and are unable to see weaknesses that are a hindrance to ourselves.

What I mean is that we are to surround ourselves with people we know and trust and have chosen to allow to speak over, and into, our lives.  These people should be hand picked based on the fruit on their lives and may be long, enduring relationships or for seasons in our lives as we journey and grow.

So those we have not granted entry into our lives may be part.of our lives by association but not by authority.  They may rub shoulders with us by their proximity to us but they are not positioned by us. They may be in our lives but are not necessarily grounded with us to remain together  through a storm.

These people may gain our ear but should not gain access to our hearts to trouble it. Our ear faces the world and is visible to others. Like the eye it may be a gateway to our inner world. But our hearts are from where the issues of life flow and out of which the course of our lives are directed.

As such very few should have access to our inner spring. Many would happily stomp through without so.much as a thought for the damage their muddy boots may cause. Those in our lives we have granted access would carefully consider the consequences of their words and approach and would be mindful of our lives and where we are in our journey.

I'm no saying we just need yes men in our lives but we also don't need frivolously strewn destructive attacks that have no Spirit leading and are designed to manipulate and control.

So smile politely but pay no heed to those who fire off without the "authority". It doesn't matter if they do so subtly or crudely. The spirit behind it is the same and we should ensure we are protected from its effects by recognising who we have bestowed the right of access in our lives to.

The Myth of English Language in New Zealand

Anyone wanting to come to NZ will know that English is important here, which, as a policy, I think is fine. I think that one way to ensure good immersion into a new culture and even promote a national identity, is to ensure that everyone communicates in one common language.

I understand that language carries culture so many migrants whose first language is not English will frequently maintain their "home" language along with the connected cultural habits and nuances. This notion of language and identity is completely recognised in NZ with a strong push to Maori being spoken in homes and presumably along with it a resurgence of the subtleties of the associated culture and a pride in the heritage associated with that culture.

I have no problem with this but I see, with immigrants, how hanging on to migrant roots and language can disadvantage the next generation who are usually the very ones that immigrants move to benefit - ie. their kids. How often have I seen  migrant kids who are doing their schooling here but still are very unconfident communicating in English. 

I can understand this from migrants but what I can't get over is how students can come through the schooling and tertiary education systems in NZ and still can barely conduct an interview in English or, if employed, would have to have every email edited. 

I won't comment on NZ high school education as it has both positives and negatives in its approach and I can somehow understand a student being promoted without being able to communicate in English in a High School but NZ tertiary education is another story entirely and I think it is a disgrace and completely deceptive to advocate that a student can pass a degree or diploma delivered in English and achieve what is considered to be a "first language" English qualification when, in fact, they clearly cannot communicate in English.

The solution, in my opinion, is to begin to award Second Language English Qualifications which at least would forewarn potential employers locally or offshore of the real status of the applicant and the likely investment of resources to eventually upskill those who clearly would like to be employed in an English speaking environment.

How do tertiary institutions manage to do this? Simple. They use "group presentations" as an integral part of their delivery medium of instruction. This usually drags the good communicators down while benefiting those who simply would never be able to communicate in English. Of course there are many who are not great orators and I am not suggesting this is the beginning and the end. Certainly the lack of English writing ability must also be evident to any lecturer and here I am at a loss as to how they promote students who can't write in English.

Having said this, I had a lecturer at Open Polytechnic who could barely speak English and spent almost half an hour just asking us our names so he could write it on a whiteboard - clearly irritating most students in the room.

So I think it's time to be honest about the one aspect we can control, namely being truthful about the student's ability to communicate in English.  

Information overload - when knowledge isn't power

There was a time it was thought that information was knowledge and knowledge was power. Today, however, we have a glut of information; an overload of data. Some of this data is fact, much is fantasy; some research , most opinion.

We now have a dilemma - information discernment. How do we decide what information is valuable or useful and what is not? Which sources are trustworthy and which are not? Which opinions align to our values and which challenge them?

You see, frequently our limiting factor is still time. The flow of information began by allowing us to quickly glean information that would have taken us much longer to acquire. But with the ease of entry in to the playing field came an increase in the quantity of information. And with the increase in quantity came pressure on time.

We now had to begin combing the volume of information for quality of information. This is more difficult, as even researching the author or originator took time to establish whether we placed any value on the information.

So the initial benefit of saving time became the challenge.

It's easy to When pointed to website to quickly flick across and look at the "billboard" to see what's on offer. Websites are usually visual and, to some degree, interactive. A bit like an advert in a newspaper. It's informative and may meet a need we have. But a blog is like a column piece in the newspaper. It offers an opinion and may challenge our paradigm. It requires our energy to decide whether to ignore or react. It may entrench our thinking or inspire us to challenge the view offered.

In any event, it is more information to be processed. Most people want to be entertained so it can become a challenge engaging people. Usually a response is drawn only when an issue touches a nerve in the sense that it personally affects them or they feel a compassion toward the issue.

Still, it becomes another piece of information to process. The question is quality versus quantity. The question is time. The question involves priorities. Priorities will depend on our personal stage in life - do we care about this issue? Do we have an opinion on it? Are we forming an opinion? Are we prepared to received new data to support or challenge our view?

It's all a process and processes need time. And time is a limited resource!!

So is knowledge power? Maybe; if it is valuable knowledge; if it is unique knowledge, something uncommon.

Racism alive and well in New Zealand

Tariana Turia stated on a minor party leaders' debate on national tv that because Maori, Pacific Islanders and "the poor" have shorter lifespans, they should retire at 60 while other demographic groups should retire at 65.

Sound logic? You bet, if the culture is one of entitlement. Maybe this won't stand up to any UN charters but NZ continues to head down the PC path of least resistance somehow willing itself to believe that a socialist system is still not able to deliver the same education & opportunities to certain groups - this despite hunting down Maori & PI on uni campuses and flogging them with scholarships. Not only does that give them a debt free start compared to others but also allows for chopping and changing of courses. Every advert for binge drinking, drunk driving & smoking is targeted at these minority groups yet somehow it remains someone else's fault!

A recent temporary employee at AUT (he was a male Pakeha so no chance of employment there!) commented on the slack work ethic of admin employees pitching to work as they felt like it, faking appointments, sitting on the net "researching" leads. He was so efficient the boss gave him an office so as not to be distracted. Yet he was not considered for a permanent appointment. To top it all, he was excited to join the touch rugby team but was told he could not as it was a PI team! I suggested he start a Pakeha team and see how long it would be tolerated. Ironic that a country with a legacy of apartheid protest has landed up in this sorry state, isn't it?

Why is NZ slipping in terms of productivity and earnings to Australia? Because kiwis who desire to work based on competency have jumped across the ditch and are working without cushy perks. And that includes Maori who prove themselves quite capable of doing well without mommy state mollycoddling them like infants!

The irony now is that the apparently prestigious Auckland university has a leading academic shouting that certain immigrant groups import racist attitudes into the "open & tolerant" (ie PC) kiwi society. AU backed her outspoken, divisive, opinion as academic opinion, not insulting to those immigrant groups - this despite the Race Commissioner laying a complaint.

Who needs to import racism? It is living here in NZ nice and warm; well fed and protected from harm.