"If you’re over 35, you probably remember playing outside till the streetlights came on. But today, a lot of parents worry that if they let their kids play the old-fashioned way – spontaneously, unsupervised, with whoever’s available in the neighbourhood — their children will be bullied by kids older than them.

Here are six ways you can help them (and you!) put those fears in perspective:

1. Mixed-age play reduces bullying ...
2 A little discomfort is a good thing ...
3. Not all meanness is bullying ...
4. Fight jerks with 'social jiu-jitsu' ...
5: Teach The Three R’s [Recognise, Resist, Report]...
6. Ask: What kind of childhood do you want for them?

"Finally, have other parents to try to remember how much they loved playing as a kid.

"Then ask: 'Do you wish your mum was watching you the whole time? Do you wish she was in the tree house with you? Do you wish she was there when you were talking to your friends? Do you wish you were kept ‘safe’ by never having any unsupervised play time, so you’d never possibly deal with a bully?

"'If so, then do the same for your kids. But if you think you got something out of your time with friends, outside, playing and dealing with the inevitable conflicts, why not give that same gift to your kids?'

"And then…open the door."

~ Lenore Skenazy from her post 'Six Truths about Bullies and Bullying'

You'd have to be an Islamist, an anti-Western tankie or a moron to not wish the fall of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  The 1979 revolution was anti-humanist, anti-reason and implemented a regime that - if it were led by fundamentalist Christians - would be called far-right and fascist. It's a theocracy, with law determined by its single interpretation of the one religion, with little tolerance for other religions let alone atheism.  It is a tightly controlled democracy, with choice between a preset selection of Islamist candidates.  There is little freedom of speech, nobody can campaign for the end of the Islamist regime. Media is entirely controlled by the state. Women are second class citizens, with the morality police controlling what they wear in public, because the men of the Islamic Republic can't be trusted to control their libidos, their hands and their penises if they see a women's head and hair.  Of course it's fairly obvious how difficult it is to be openly LGBT in the Islamic Republic. 

By any measure the entire Western self-styled "liberal" left would loathe and despise the regime. On top of its fascism, it has long had a nuclear programme which has been enriching uranium beyond that needed for civilian use. It is pursuing nuclear weapons, notwithstanding like north Korea before it, the claims it is not doing so.  Its economy is, in part, built on extracting fossil fuels.

However, the Islamic Republic does have several positive points - from the hard-left point of view - it has always called for "Death to Israel" and "Death to America", which reflect the deeply held feelings of anti-Zionists and anti-capitalists the world over.  To express this, Iran has funded, armed and trained its proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah. It has engaged in Iraq and Syria, although of course it was wrecklessly attacked by Saddam Hussein's Iraq with Soviet and US endorsement in 1980 and was undoubtedly the victim in that horrendous conflict.

Today, Iran has been a strong supporter and arms Russia, in support of its aggression against Ukraine. Iran mistakenly shot down Ukrainian flight PS752 in 2020, (but then the US mistakenly shot down Iran Air flight IR655 in 1988). 

The consequences of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is potentially catastrophic for Israel, but also may provide access to its proxies for such technology. Iran philosophically is antithetical to the values of open, tolerant secular liberal democracies.  

Israel's action against Iran, if it can end its nuclear programme, will help make the Middle East and the world a more peaceful place. If it can result in the fall of the regime, it will be all the better for the people of Iran and for promoting peace for Israel/Palestine, Lebanon and the Middle East more generally.  

Israel has done it before. In 1981 it destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, as Saddam Hussein's first attempt to develop a nuclear weapons' programme. This bought a great deal of time, and potentially saved hundreds of thousands of lives.  At that time it was condemned by the UN Security Council, including the US, but it was morally entirely justified.

The only negative to Israel's action is if it fails, if it emboldens the regime further if it is not overthrown, and Iran's allies provide it with more support to develop WMDs. This is why it is important for the US to help it finish the job.

Those claiming moral equivalence between the liberal democratic open Israel, that is not a theocracy, that allows public protests, free press and does not seek "death" to any other countries, and the Islamic Republic of Iran are either morons or despicably evil.  The people of Iran deserve better than the calcified misogynistic theocracy in Tehran, and no such regime should feel free to develop nuclear weapons.

There is a pragmatic argument as to whether Israel's actions could prove counter-productive, but that is not an argument against disarming Iran. Those who protest or are openly in support of the Islamic Republic of Iran are actual far-right fascists, and should be called out for it.  As Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz said, Israel is doing the West's "dirty work for us". Let us hope it works.

And yes, to those who say whatever succeeds the Islamic Republic might be worse, there is always that risk.  One poll indicated that the vast majority want an end to the Islamic Republic, and although the previous regime was far from a liberal democratic one (the Shah was violent to opponents), it did provide a framework for women to be more equal citizens.  Bear in mind the protests that erupted in 2022 after the death in custody of a young woman arrested for wearing a hijab improperly.

To come back locally. I wonder if one, just one, journalist in NZ might ask any of the hard-left party leaders - Swarbrick, Davidson, Waititi or Ngarewa-Packer, whether they think it would be good if Iran's regime fell over or even....just even, if it would be good if Iran had nuclear weapons.

I doubt any journalists would have the courage to do so, or if any did, the answers would be at best evasive at worst a repulsive eructation of moral equivalency.  

If ever there is a display of values by politicians it is how they apply their own values to people abroad.  

Source