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.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE RUGBY. YEAH RIGHT

Background – Corporates Control the Rugby World Cup
Being a rugby-loving Scot here in New Zealand was particularly interesting in September-October, as we hosted the 2011 Rugby World Cup (RWC) tournament. I started writing an article about how ridiculous the bagpipe ban was, at RWC Scotland matches after I read this:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/fan-central/5651953/Scots-appeal-Rugby-World-Cup-bagpipe-ban

I felt irritated by the ban, because of how much apparent control the IRB exercised on what is supposed to be a people’s national event. Heck, the supporters wanted bagpipes!! As I researched and debated the issue, my friend AND my wife said, “Hang on! How would you feel about a piper sitting next to you blaring away while you’re trying to watch the match?” There’s a lot of truth in that, although I challenge anybody to show me a piper who can play for a full 80 minutes - plus half-time!

However, my research instead led me to something more serious; the hijacking of our national sports event, RWC 2011. Once the IRB allowed itself to be ruled by corporate sponsors, it led to a corporate hijacking of the RWC tournaments - including RWC 2011. This led to decisions being made contrary to the wishes of the average rugby supporter, voter and taxpayer. The NZ government was complacent in that hijacking, because they wanted to keep on-side the IRB. We’ll discuss how later, when we talk about the Major Events Management Act. Succinctly for now, The NZ government didn’t want a repeat of 2003, where New Zealand was to co-host RWC 2003 with Australia, then lost it.

For RWC 2003, Australia and New Zealand put in a joint bid to co-host the tournament. As preparations continued, the NZRFU resisted the amount of IRB control, including the absolute definition of “clean stadia.” This was the excuse the Australians and IRB needed, to move RWC 2003 solely to Australia, and away from those “gobby kiwis”. The sad thing was, that the NZRFU was pushing against the IRB control - unacceptable control of what the NZRFU saw as a New Zealand tournament. Unfortunately, the NZRFU simply did not understand that the IRB and its sponsors LITERALLY own the RWC. It was never "a New Zealand tournament.” The Australians understood this in 2003; it allowed Australia to steal-away the tournament from New Zealand. And today, that RWC ownership is even more controlled! Once the IRB became infected by greed and profit, they became whores to their corporate sponsors. Then, that level of control on the RWC went beyond reason.

Let’s look at how the corporates hijacked "our" RWC. Does anyone else think it’s outrageous that we couldn't drink anything but Heineken at RWC games or at Fazones around the country? The single-beer farce is merely one example of how supporters’ wishes are suppressed in our national event, but there are other examples. The IRB and its sponsors now own the RWC with unashamed control. The reality of that fact, for you and I, is this:

• Inflated rugby ticket pricing at stadiums, well outside the affordability of your average rugby-loving kiwi.
• Consumer choice crushed, when you go to buy a beer at a rugby game – and don’t even get me started on the beer price gouging!
• Virtually all live rugby games during the season only on Sky TV, aside from a couple during the World Cup
• World cup games delayed or non-existent on free-to-air channels
• Pubs couldn’t even say “Rugby World Cup matches here” on their pub chalkboards.
• Frustratingly petulant examples of brand infringement in the news, such as players fined for wearing unsanctioned mouthguards

Good God, I’ve just found out that “Heineken” is so insidious, that it’s even in my spellchecker! Heck, I’ll probably be in trouble for using the phrases like “RWC” and “Heineken” without permission from the IRB!


IRB Attempted Control Over the Media
As the most visible corporate hijack is that of TV coverage, I’ll elaborate on the issue. How many of us wanted to (or could afford to) pay for Sky TV, simply to watch all 48 RWC games live? Because I can tell you that, sadly, Sky was the ONLY channel where you could watch all the games live. Our free-to-air Maori Channel did well to secure all the games, but most of those were delayed coverage. Was I the only person who thought it was outrageous that our national state-owned broadcaster couldn’t even secure a fraction of those games – delayed or otherwise!? The New Zealand free-to-air channels tried to take some control back in the TV rights bidding-process, in 2010. However, the IRB didn’t like the free-to-air channels colluding in the bidding process. Remember, the IRB thrive on control. So, the IRB pulled the games from the TV1 and TV3 partnership. The IRB said it was trying to maximise profits from the RWC – Sky was prepared to pay more for live games exclusivity. In trying to maximise profits, the IRB believed that control and dictation, rather then partnership and communication, were the best ways to achieve that. There are many examples of the dictatorial IRB trying to crush resistance to the amount of RWC control. Here’s where the IRB tried to control the written media, not just the TV coverage:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup/5500028/Aussie-media-groups-to-boycott-World-Cup

The essence of the story is that the Aussie newspapers said “No!” to a restrictive contract with the IRB on the use of video clips of the games on websites. Australia's Newspaper Publishers' Association (NPA) CEO, Mark Hollands, expressed that ''Publishers' rights to use video to report news is permitted under the fair dealing exemption of the Copyright Act. Publishers are not prepared to contractually sign away these rights [to the IRB].''

There were two interesting sub-issues here, with the Aussie media’s resistance to the IRB:
• The IRB having a corporate-like hold on what is supposed to be a national event. Because Sky paid for exclusivity, the IRB wanted to deny the hosting country the right to show all the games on the free-to-air channels – even down to little video clips.
• The hypocrisy of Rupert Murdoch (pictured right) over his relationship with the IRB. He’s happy to hijack the sole live rights to the RWC, but his media outlets bleat when the IRB reciprocate with controlled media reporting.


Consequences for Rugby Being in the Professional Age
Yes, I know rugby is in the professional age, and this is the price we pay for letting Sky and other corporations monopolise rugby around the world – particularly here in New Zealand. However, these things creep up on us, don’ t they? They creep up on us so insidiously, that by the time the full implications are realised, our voice has been diluted, and it’s too late to cry “FOUL!” How many of us truly realised that this is how it would be, when the IRB did a deal with rugby players in 1995, to make the game a professional sport? Slowly but surely, the corporate takeover of our national sport dug in its beachhead.

The problem with our society and our form of democracy is that this is exactly what happens and how it happens in all things, not just with RWC; when something is wrong, our voice is diluted when we try to protest. As with the Sky TV hi-jack of the games, the Major Events Management Act slipped in quietly, before we all realised its implications. “The what?!!!” I hear you shout. Well, this was a law that our government passed to grant the IRB the right to fine businesses who breached the advertising “clean zone” rules. That is, fines for displaying wares which are not those of the IRB sponsors, or are not sanctioned by the IRB. Let’s be quite clear here – there are wars, rapes, murders and world-wide starvation, and our government coludes with the IRB to criminalise conflicting advertisers?!! Sheesh. This is supposedly “Our Government.” How many men-in-the-street agreed to that stupid act? The beauty of the act for the IRB is that our Ministry of Economic Development (MED) did all the dirty work in policing and fining for the act. It was a clever way for the IRB to be seen to be keeping its hands clean, don’t you think? Thankfully, it didn’t work too well. With every ludicrous example of where our MED enforced the Act, the IRB looked sillier and greedier. Here are some ridiculous examples of that IRB control. This is what the country had to put up with, because rugby is dominated by sponsorship:

• Samoan winger Alesana Tuilagi was fined NZ$10,000 because he wore a "branded" mouthguard for a match (good grief!). [Click here to read]
• A helicopter company was challenged by RWC organisers for taking aerial photos – it didn’t have IRB-sanctioned branding on the side. [Click here to read]
• Ambulances were required to “cover-up” logos of sponsors, not sanctioned by the IRB. Did the IRB have no shame? [Click here to read]
• A strip club and its workers risked fines after scantily clad ladies in skimpy, pseudo All-Blacks gear handed out leaflets in the 'clean zone.' [Click here to read]


Is it Truly About the Rugby Any More?
Remember in early September 2011, when Mike Miller (IRB CEO) was on TV watching a kids’ game of rugby? Did anyone else cough and splutter where he said, “This is what the rugby world cup’s all about.” Yeah, right, Mike. It’s all about the money, isn’t it? Yes, yes, yes, I know the arguments; we need the money to pay the All-Blacks, so they won’t go overseas. We need the sponsors’ money so we won’t lose All-Blacks players to the high-paying European and Japanese rugby clubs. However, if we’d shouted loud enough as the game was descending into this professional melting pot, things might be very different. Perhaps a few of us did, but that voice was not the mighty roar needed for change. Cleverly, the fall into professionalism was a slow one, and we protested a few at a time, at differing stages of the fall. Our voice was diluted – again.

So, when you read this article, there’s an emotion in us that says “That’s disgraceful!”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/5679217/European-clubs-another-barrier-for-Pacific-teams
However, as with soccer, our top rugby clubs have ceased to be “Our Clubs.” They are now franchises, to the degree that the large European clubs are now, effectively, rich corporations. They’re not “clubs” any more; they’re profit-making companies.

Therefore, the decision of some “clubs” NOT to release their key players for the RWC was, from their perspective, purely a financial one: the club has paid for that player, they own him. The clubs do not want to lose that player’s impact on the field, nor risk him being injured in the RWC. I guess the unanswered question here is, why were some players released from high-profile clubs (Jonny Wilkinson, Brian O’Driscoll), but not others? The logical conclusion is clear; how long is it before all clubs refuse to release their players for a RWC, and professionalism bites the IRB on the ass? I hope I live to see that day.

You know, there was something innocent, sincere and pure about the Rugby World Cup in 1987, and even in 1991. This was before the executives clasped their grubby hands on it - before the IRB became infected and corrupted with greed. Where is it going to end:

• You and I get fined if we go to a RWC game and wear a rival sponsors clothing or display any brand not sanctioned by the IRB?
• We can only use Mastercards, not our widespread VISA or EFTPOS cards, during RWC?
• Part of the Major Events Management Act lowers the drinking age so Heiniken can sell more beer during RWC?

Sadly, I don’t think the Rugby World Cup is about the rugby any more.