THE CONVERSATION 2

Now here’s an interesting article from earlier this year (before the election);

"Cuts to EQC enable $372m surplus"

And here’s another interesting article more recently (AFTER the election);

"Government surplus in doubt"

Weeeellllllllll, who’d have thought THAT would happen!!? The finances return briefly to surplus before the election, but mysteriously drop when the right-wing hacks have bought and spun their way back into power? Gosh. Between elections, at the most serious, highest levels of government, I bet a conversation like this took place:

BILL: Hey John, the old finances are a bit up shit-creek.
JOHN: WHAT? What do you mean?!! We promised the proles a surplus by 2014!! Our whole bloody re-election might depend on it!
BILL: Yeah, but what we promise and what we can deliver are two different things.
JOHN: Pfff. [Rolls his eyes] Ain't that the truth? Well tell me, farm boy; what are the figures?
BILL: Well, we have a surplus of $372m.
JOHN: Fantastic! So, what’s the problem, bumpkin?
BILL: Well, we had to cut $200m from EQC to do it - God forbid that Christchurch find out about it! As well as that, you said we’d bail out AMI’s earthquake liability.  You said on Campbell Live, “We will not walk through this alone, Christchurch.”  
JOHN: Big deal. So What?
BILL: Umm…. AMI didn’t re-insure itself enough. The directors didn’t buy enough overseas cover for a major event like his.
JOHN: ** sigh ** So what? Get to the point, sheep shagger.
BILL: AMI’s earthquake liability is $500m. They’re bust, remember?
JOHN: So what? It’s clearly the shit part of the business. Separate off the broken part and screw the policy holders.
BILL: Weeeeellllll ….. we can’t do that, I think. We have thousands of Christchurch householders who would have their assets nullified as AMI policy holders. And Campbell Live would eat that lunch before we had pancakes.
JOHN:  Shit.
BILL: And .. . they’d tell all their friends around the country. Our ratings would sink from sympathy, and we’d never be re-elected.

JOHN: Bugger. Ok, what do you recommend?
BILL: No idea, I’m just used to dealing with sheep miscarriages and fences. Gosh, John, this is your specialty . . .
JOHN: Hmmm. Ok, I’ve an idea. How’s this? We break up AMI. We set up a separate company from the broken bit of the AMI debacle.

BILL: Do we sack the incompetent directors from AMI?
JOHN: Hell no, they’re our friends and potential National donors. No, let our mates have the good bits of AMI still, and we’ll manage the shit part somehow.
BILL: So how are we going to spin the debt and the break-off, and the failed business without hurting our corporate buddies?
JOHN: Hmm. Well, first of all, we call the failed-bit of AMI something friendly, like “Southern Response.” That’ll keep the Christchurch proles suckered into thinking we actually care about them, rather than the truth -  which is our wafer-thin surplus promise to the rest of the country. Next, we’ll hire some Aussie pitbull as Southern Response's Chief Executive to fuck-over policy holders who dare to ask for their entire policy entitlement.
BILL: Duh, how will that help?
JOHN: Hmm .? .. . hang on . . just looking for something [flick, flick, flick] . . .  GOT HIM! Peter Rose. Characterless, cold, numbers-robot. Perfect. We’ll remind him his SOLE responsibility is to the National Party - AH – Ahem – I mean, eh . . . to the TAXPAYER. Then we’ll let him off the leash.
BILL: SO, HOW DOES THAT SOLVE THE SURPLUS PROBLEM?!!!!! Oh gosh, I’m only a simple farmer, John! I only understand fly strike and lusty rams. I just can’t keep up with your sophisticated manipulation of metro politics!

JOHN:  Hah! And that, my friend, is exactly why a convicted goat-fucker wearing a blue rosette would be still elected in some of your farm-country provinces! Hang in there, sheep-shagger, and I’ll summerise:

• We have $372m surplus, but $500m AMI debt. 
• We’ll drip feed $100 each year to Southern Response to get Christchurch houses fixed. It’ll take 5 years for quake-stressed Christchurch residents to have their houses fixed, but our election promises and business buddies’ interest are much more important. 
• We can STILL spin that we’re helping Christchurch [**snigger**]

BILL: Duh, so, I can say we have a $372m surplus going into election year – even though we don’t, really?
JOHN: Yup.
BILL:  What about the $80b we have in accumulated debt since we got into power, because of loss of revenue from tax cuts to our rich buddies!!?
JOHN: Sssshhhhhhhh
BILL: Ok, wait.  So you’re saying, we have $80b accumulated debt, including $500m from our shite executive mates at AMI? We can manipulate a surplus only if we cut EQC’s money and limit the liability to Southern Response to only 20% this year. That means $372m surplus, with only $100 mill this year to Southern Response?!!
JOHN: Yup.
BILL: Whoof. That’s a big ask of Christchurch!
JOHN: They a Labour city or National City?
BILL:   What? Um . . Christchurch? Ehhhh . . this election or next election?
JOHN:  Any election.
BILL:   Umm, pretty much Labour every time.
JOHN:  Huh. Then, fuck ‘em.


FURTHER READING: 
* Government surplus on a knife edge
* Government says surplus on track despite treasury predictions 
* Southern response investments
* Accountant claims surplus result of clever accounting

WHAT A PIECE OF WORK IS MAN

Now here’s an interesting article:

http://www.interestingprojects.com/discussions/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1128

The article’s premise is that many of the followers of Aardvark (AKA Bruce Simpson of Tokora) suggest that politician-basher Bruce should form the "Aardvark Party". The said party would have "the goal of bringing some pragmatism, commonsense, fairness, transparency and responsibility to the world of NZ politics.” Good luck with that, Bruce.

History has taught me that I don’t think such a pragmatism is possible at all. At best, such well-meaning may be possible only in the short term. The problem is, The Human Beast. Specifically, whenever you have a group of people trying to achieve a goal – even the same goal - then you will have competing agendas within that journey. That's how Man jostles for power. And that’s politics. Look at how the even the Russian revolutionaries split into revolutionary Bolsheviks and evolutionary Mensheviks, as an example. One goal, competing agendas. That's the nature of The Human Beast. Frankly, I often think we've barely moved past "animal" (and I'm doing whales and elephants a disservice, here).

In addition, you may well start off with admirable intentions for a Pragmatic Party, but then someone else will sneak in who thinks they can carry the baton better. And, you may call that person lacking in ethics, or simply politically efficient, but the newbie will often stamp over the incumbent to carry that baton forward. This is the norm for a political party of good people, with good intentions: it becomes hi-jacked by professional politicians. And the previous leader will be pushed aside as though he never existed. Look at Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa. Who??!! Exactly. Google ‘em.

Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa (pictured above) were good men, popular figures without political aspirations or political experience. Politically naive, they both found themselves caught up in the populist drive to democratise Eastern Europe. They became figureheads for the popular revolution and ended up, reluctantly, as the heads of their respective countries. What happened to them? Professional politicians took over and kicked them out.

This is because politics is the job of the envious, and the greedy. I can’t help but look at people who WANT to get into politics as (by-and-large) those who WANT to become part of the establishment. Aspiring politicians look at the establishment with envy and greed. Even those few who enter politics with the best of intentions end up becoming infected by the system and the process. Personally, I think the corruption of Tito Philip Field epitomises the self-serving politician, aspiring to the trough.

Such people want to become part of the establishment to secure and wield power. Why? Alice Miller offers the premise that, at some time in their lives, these power-seekers were victims of power abuse. That is, they have been abused by the power that an authority figure in their life has wielded. So, all their lives, they will crave power to secure it, wield it, and abuse it. This is the Power Abuse Cycle, similar to any abuse cycle. Miller, in her book, “Drama of a Being a Child” explained that these very people, who are power-abuse victims, deliberately seek power to abuse it. So, they are precisely the kind of people who shouldn’t be in power; Thatcher, Mao, Bush, Stalin, Hitler are all prime examples. I lived as a student under Thatcher for six years. I didn't like it. Yes, power might corrupt, but you can’t beat a nasty politician coming to power who’s already got some serious issues. Oh, they’ll give you a real rough ride on the Mare of Steel (pictured below!):

As a result of this power abuse cycle, we end up being governed by an establishment that is self-serving, completely lacking in empathy, and even quite malicious. And, my friends, I would even say that about our farcical, so-called, western democracies. As a resident in New Zealand, I look around the world with dismay. I look at how New Zealand, Australia, and especially America, threw off the establishment chains of their colonial masters – only to create a new divisive society. America surely leads the way, and New Zealand is little better:

• “US Affluent Classes Dwarf China and India”
• “Wealth Gap Hits 30 Year High”
• “NZ Rich-Poor Gap Widens Faster Than Rest of World”

As I ponder all this and look at our lessons in history, I sometimes fantasize that the only way to rid ourselves of this shite establishment, and the flies upon it, is mass, violent, bloody revolution. I often think that the only way the masses can seize back control of their lives is by executing the politicians, the civil service, the judges, the police chiefs and the financiers. The French Revolutionaries literally cut off the head of their establishment. Oh but wait - is France now so very different today, say to Britain (which avoided a similar revolution)? Does France not now merely have a different kind of self-serving establishment? After the American Revolution, how many intelligent individuals truly believe America is the land of the free today? And what about the Russian Revolution? Pfft! Now that was a farce that ended up costing the world large-style - almost to its end! The eminent historian AJP Taylor noted that the Bolsheviks may have executed the entire Russian royal family, but hypocritically still used many of the royals' same generals and EXACTLY the same civil service. Crucially, one ruling elite was merely replaced by another.

In fairness, any revolution has to utilise parts of, or all of, the previous establishment - because the entire fabric of society would collapse otherwise. Economies would collapse and violent crime would become the norm. In that sense, I say that none of the previous revolutions have been sincere nor successful. The so-called revolutions changed nothing. This is because you can’t change the nature of Man. I look today with disgust at the way poverty is ignored, injustice thrives and social inequality continues. I look at the insulting way politicians use our taxes to scheme, plot, then coldly deliver edicts that affect us adversely. As I see these things, I can’t help but think that this crap species of ours hasn’t progressed since Roman times. Indeed, in the words of Shakespeare, “What a piece of work is man” [Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2].

A hippy friend of mine once said that anarchy is the purest form of self-government and civilisation. But you can never have true anarchy, because you’ll always have some twat trying to take over. What a piece of work is man.

JUDITH WANTS TO STAB OUR EYES OUT

Now here’s an interesting article:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7719245/Collins-appalled-by-Scott-Guy-TV-coverage

And so it continues: the erosion of our democratic rights. The continual right-wing spin chips away, trying to push our democratic status back to that of the industrial revolution. And we, as a result of the structure of our democracy, are letting them do it. For many years, the establishment in this country - dutifully represented by the National Party - fought tooth and nail to prevent cameras in court. Now, Minister of Justice Judith Collins (pictured right) claims that it has become a media circus.

And you know what? She’s right.

But don’t faint at me agreeing with a right-wing hatchet-girl, because here’s her spin. Sick of the media’s selective clips, Judith Collins says she wants to prevent court being turned into reality TV. She wants to take away the only eyes in court we have, when we can't attend actual cases. It has become a drama, but I don't think that’s her real motivation. As my article last year expressed, right-wing governments will try their utmost to erode the democratic rights we’ve fought for. And public access into our courts is one of our democratic rights, isn't it? And so, I would say that access to other recordings of proceedings is a democratic right as well. Let’s face it, who pays for the damn court system? IT’S US, THE TAXPAYER, THAT FOOTS THE BILL! Read these articles:

• "Judges go Under the Microscope" [Stuff.co.nz]
• "Jetting Judges Fly at Taxpayer Expense" [Stuff.co.nz]

So, considering the exorbitant wage and expenses bill of the judiciary, isn't it fair that there should be taxpayer accountability? So, isn’t it fair that we should have intimate knowledge of our courts working, as part of that accountability? You’d think so.

However, when my wife and I went to court to seek a restraining order against our next door neighbour, we were appalled at what information is NOT released into the public domain. For example, what many of us don’t know is that court staff produce a document called “Notes of Evidence” after proceedings. Court staff call it a transcript, but it’s nothing of the sort. Why? Because it doesn’t contain HALF of what is said during the proceedings. We were flabbergasted that some key things were seemingly omitted. This included, what we thought, were some flippant and sarcastic comments from “our” judge Michael J Crosbie:

• Sarcastic comments such as, “Yes, I’m beginning to wonder who exactly the applicant is,” were omitted.
• Comments illustrating the judge’s apparent indolence were omitted, such as, ”I’ve got enough cases hanging over me.”
• His summing up, including confirmation that we had suffered distress, was completely omitted.
• His comments, that he agreed with our transcript of abusive comments from our harassing neighbour, were omitted.

And these were but a few examples. Remember, we pay these civil servants in excess of $360,000 a year to be patient and objective. It took us a lot of courage to take our harasser to court, but do you think Michael Crosbie was able to to be patient and objective after hearing THIS case the very same day?

We didn’t think so. We also think he simply couldn't be bothered with our case.

If you go to court - and I encourage you to sit in the public gallery of any court room - you'll be surprised. You’ll be surprised at the time-wasting. You’ll be surprised by the inefficiencies. You’ll be surprised by some of the comments from the judge, as we were. In the research for my complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commission, I was flabbergasted by the sheer contempt of judges and the court system for its paymasters – us, the taxpaying public. There is an entire regime dedicated to NOT releasing information - in a supposedly free society. This regime of arrogance exists because not enough of us know that such contempt exists. It exists, because there are no apparent target outputs or key performance indicators for the judiciary or court system. In other words, this contempt exists because there is no accountability to the public.

And this is the real reason why Judith Collins and the rest of the establishment can’t abide cameras in court – because they show up the true farce that is our legal system. The legal system is not for you and I. It is for the rich, for big business to resolve disputes and to put away criminals who threaten property. Everything else involving us, the public, is a protracted mockery. Our legal system, based on the English system, is not designed to protect us, but those to protect those who rule us.

My belief is that judges have become so resistant to any kind of accountability, that they will push and push and push to avoid it. Jonathon Temm, Law Society president, has cynically used this opportunity to call for cameras in court to be removed. And I think his comments vindicate my take on the self-importance of the legal profession elite. I suspect they have been lobbying Collins for some time for the removal of cameras, or any kind of recording that lets us into the true minds of our deeply arrogant and flawed judges, and our deeply flawed legal system. For example, we tried to have the tape recording of our court hearing released, but the judge wasn’t having any of it. Crosbie had the power to release the tape, but I think he knew there were many things on there that he said during the hearing, which shouldn’t have been said – otherwise they would have been on the “Notes of Evidence.”

Yes, judges make mistakes. We all do. Yes, judges are flawed. We all are flawed. However, unlike judges we have to be ACCOUNTABLE for the things we say and do. Despite the Judicial Conduct Commission, I don’t think judges are accountable, at all, for the things they say and do.

So let’s get back to Collins and her transparently fake disgust. If you were that bothered by edited, dramatic segments of the trial being shown, Judith, why not show the whole trial? Put the video of the trial online as a public document. Have the guts to follow up on your convictions. Oh hang on, I can hear it now: “We can’t show the whole trial, because we want to protect the privacy of individuals involved in the trial." Oh, please. If you read between the lines, you’ll see that Judith Collins’ comments aren’t those of someone wishing to protect the privacy of individuals. Let’s be blunt, after Paula Bennet’s outings, this government has lost its opportunity to say it respects the privacy of individuals.

No, I think Judith Collins’ comments are those of someone who wishes to protect the failings, secrecy, and machinations of our farcical court system - and the contemptuous judges who lord over us.

Further reading:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2012/09/27/message-to-media-jump-or-be-pushed/
http://www.lawfuel.co.nz/news/442/heralds-take-on-temms-cameras-in-courts-comments
http://www.lawfuel.co.nz/news/440/cameras-in-court-and-on-the-princess-what-judge-neave-might-do
http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/7728853/Editorial-No-reason-to-remove-TV-cameras
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/14949530/support-grows-for-cameras-in-court-ban/

THE NATURE OF COURAGE IN OUR SOCIETY

I had an insight into the nature of courage the other week.

I had a fracas with our local rugby club in June 2010, following the standing down of my son’s coach. I was so incensed by what I saw as the faceless, clumsy way it was handled, that I wrote a letter putting the matter into the public domain. The issue brought back all the toxicity around how the police and judiciary treated my family during our harassment case (see previous posts, below): people in authority making decisions, but not having to account for those decisions.

I wrote to the rugby club about what I saw as its faceless committee: making decisions without communicating with, or consulting with, the parents of our family-orientated rugby club. My 5-page email (yes, FIVE) opened a Pandora’s Box, because I copied-in all the respective parents.

There are many people in faceless committees and in authority who make decisons like this. There are many authority figures and bodies who make decisions for us and about us, but don’t want to front up to account for those decisions. They do not want to face those who are affected by the adverse effects of those decisions. Large call centres are a feature of this cowardice. Call centres are often set up by bad managers of bad companies who don’t want to talk to their disaffected customers.

Do these phrases below sound familiar to any of you? I had all three in the 40-minute telephone meeting with a representative from the Rugby Club:

• How often do we hear, “Well, I don’t want to get into specifics,” when the person you’re debating with realises the facts are not on his side?

• How often do we hear, “I’m not going to get into that,” when the person you’re debating with realises he’s losing the debate?

• How often do we hear, “I think we should just move on,” when the person you’re debating with realises he’s made a huge mistake and doesn’t want to be accountable for that mistake?

So many authority figures seem to lack courage to stand up to account. However, such people without courage aren’t necessarily cowards. Not one of the parents I’d copied in wrote a public reply. I thought I’d overstepped the mark, and I was going to have to be accountable for my email. Fair enough. So, I had to dig deep when I had to face those same parents. Beforehand, I had a fantasy conversation with the parents. In my head, I would say “Well, if you guys want to give me a hard time, take your shot.” Instead, the reality was that some of the parents were shaking my hand, congratulating me on having “the balls” to write the letter, and congratulating me on staying with the rugby club. I was truly humbled.

And here’s the part about courage.

Why didn’t any of those other parents write a letter, if I was so right to put pen to paper (well, fingers to keyboard, actually)? The reason is, because our society is DESIGNED to sap our courage. This suburban life we lead becomes so comfortable, that anything or anyone that threatens that comfort is a threat to our standard of living. Shouting about the wrong and standing up for what-is-right is less important than paying for the mortgage or keeping the job. Our entire economy is dependent on the masses (and I include suburbanites in that category) being good, compliant, worker ants.

As such, we are made to FEEL like ants. We often feel completely powerless when we have to deal with a conflict, or when we have to deal with someone in authority, or when we are victims of power abuse. We are pressured to comply. Often we are one ant in a hive of indifference, and our voices are diluted. Our so-called democracy works in exactly the same way – to dilute our collective voice. We are ants.

This is why, in conflict situations, our courage leaves us. It’s supposed to.

WHAT CAN WE DO WHEN WE FEEL WE HAVE BEEN WRONGED?

• Write a letter to the person who has wronged you. State your feelings and ask for a re-dress

• Write a letter to the BOSS of the person who has wronged you. State your feelings and ask for a re-dress. Copy other people involved.

• If you have been wronged by a company, write to the Managing Director personally. Find our his exact name, title and address.

• Write to your MP on the issue and ask for help

• Put the issue in to the public domain, so the person committing the wrong can’t hide.

• Contact the media and write to the newspapers.

• Set up a blog (Hah! Like this one!)

• Keep writing

Sometimes, little comes of it, and it’s a huge battle. However, the very act of writing is often a cathartic form of therapy. The process WILL strengthen you. And, you know, occasionally – just occasionally – you might get a result. When we all combine as a local, national or global community, we can find a little bit of courage and stop faceless figures in authority harming us.