I WANT OUR DEMOCRACY BACK, JOHN

I was listening to Radio Live this morning, and contrary to my expectations, I heard an interesting article. Wallace Chapman was interviewing Michelle Boag on Obama’s efforts to put through some kind of gun reform. It prompted me to pour you another Cup of Vitriol.

Boag asserted that Obama could have a great legacy, should he choose to grasp this opportunity. At the very least, it should be for his ban on assault weapons. These are the kind of guns responsible for killing many kids in the long list of US school shootings. Boag expressed that Obama needs to make a distinction between the assault weapons that kill many people, and the guns used for hunting and personal defence. Of course, the gun businesses who fall back on the 2nd amendment are threatened by these current machinations. I would remind everyone that the 2nd amendment is over 40 years old, drafted in a time when such assault weapons were not as powerful or as freely available to the public as they are now. Americans are so wedded to their guns, culturally and commercially, that Obama has his work cut out.

Obama’s legacy could be to completely reform this issue, reform the Second Amendment, and certainly renew the ban on assault weapon sales. The recent poll seems to support Obama’s reform programme.

But it won’t happen.

It won’t happen, because this current Congress won’t let it happen. So, The People want gun reform, but their elected representatives are resisting gun reform. The powerful business-financed gun lobby has bought (figuratively or literally) too many politicians in the Republican-dominated House of Representatives.

“government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” [Abraham Lincoln]

Strange though it may seem, I’m not going to dwell on the US gun debate today. In fact, I want to talk about how we, in our sublime, utopian western “civilisations” have lost our democracy. Suffice to say, I use the gun debate as a perfect example of how America is not a democracy. America is a business-manipulated government of The People, loosely disguised as a democracy. And New Zealand, especially with the right-wing National Party in power, is little better:

• This government announced a programme for business-orientated Charter Schools, despite their public unpopularity. Even though Charter Schools appeared NOWHERE in the National Party manifesto, the National government adopted the programme to secure the support of ONE MAN. Scarily, this cartoon (pictured left) has it spot on. 
• 75% of voters in New Zealand were polled as NOT wanting our public assets sold. The poll was dismissed by the government as “too simple.” The government says it has a voter mandate to flog our public assets, by the very virtue of being in power. In other words, it doesn’t have to be answerable to the people whilst in power. 
• The Earthquake Commission (EQC) bureaucracy hamstrings Christchurch’s residential repairs and rebuilds. Meanwhile, the business-dominated plan for the city centre goes on full-speed ahead.

To be fair to the National Party, we (New Zealand - not me personally!) voted for a National government in 2008 as we plunged into a recession. So, we greedily voted for tax cuts we KNEW we couldn’t afford.  We voted for a National government in 2011 when we KNEW asset sales would be sold.  And so, we also voted for asset sales by the same logic.  It would appear that, once this National Government gets into power, it has a mandate to do whatever it likes. In truth, you know that’s right, because we’ve all been through this with previous governments. However, that doesn't make the behaviour acceptable.  The problem is that a government, once it’s in power for its three-year-term, seems no longer answerable to the people. Our only recourse (or hope!) is at the ballot box after those three years, or that coalition partners somehow temper the incumbent. Yeah, how’s that working for you, New Zealand? What do you think are the chances of those in power adopting a Recoverable Proxy system for us proles? Well, there are in fact two chances; fat and slim.

Frankly, New Zealand’s stupidity and selfishness has enabled such business-financed parties to manipulate The People. That manipulation can be in the form of clever spin, or blatantly buying off the voters with “crumbs from the rich man’s table.” [Luke 16:19-31]. You could go so far as to call that abuse. It’s certainly abuse of power - and abuse of the intelligence of the discerning voters, at least!

When I was discussing this with my red-neck father-in-law, he commented that “at last we have the vote.” Well, that’s not good enough. Our blind acceptance of that fact, and our blind acceptance that we don’t need anything else, is exactly what lets government do what they want to do for three years. It blindly hands government to the unfettered machinations of the corporations. I hear my critics now; “But large businesses create goods, services, employment and tax revenue.”  Yes, and I’m sure some New Zealand large businesses would love us to go back to the laissez faire, unfettered days of the Industrial Revolution, free from government "interference." Big business with a foot in power worries me. However, big business without reins scares the runny crap out of me.

So, John, I’m not going to thank you for our right to vote. We fought for it, and you’re spitting on it. The Chartists would be turning in their graves right now.  John, I want our democracy back – before the next election, please?

FURTHER READING:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/19/obama-pressure-congress-gun-control
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/strengthen-gun-control-laws-obama-tells-congress/article4323147.ece
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/manukau-courier/6113614/Anger-at-charter-plan

http://www.ppta.org.nz/index.php/resources/ppta-blog/question-what-does-john-banks-know-about-charter-schools-answer-nothing.html http://www.aardvark.co.nz/rproxy.shtml

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/

RUGBY AND POLITICS - HOW TO CORRUPT THE WORKING MAN

Now here’s an interesting article:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/6273863/league-is-the-game-they-play-in-heaven.thtml

To summarise the article, Mark Latham is lauding the simplicity of rugby league, and lambasting the complexity and elitism of rugby union. However, as I read though the entire article, there was an underlying thread that made me think about the journey of the working man through history. In that context, there is a comparison between rugby and politics. Mark Latham reminds us that the working man founded rugby league. Rugby league was founded as a professional sport to answer the working man’s needs for travelling expenses and subsistence while playing the game. There’s a similar journey by the working man in politics.

But first, I need to point out that Aussie Mark Latham’s logic doesn’t quite add up for rugby union in New Zealand, does it? Here, rugby union has always been the every-man’s game. Colin Meads, Zinzan Brooke, George Nepia and many other working-men All Blacks legends say they played for the All Blacks, despite the fact that they didn’t get paid. Indeed, any resentment or envy has only come out in the last few years when such legends grizzle at the salaries of our new generation of All Blacks legends. Even despite that, rugby union still draws more grass-roots support in New Zealand than rugby league. The article’s premise may hold truth for Australia, but not for New Zealand.

So let’s get back to politics. You know, the pursuit of subsistence while pursuing politics is exactly why the Chartists protested in 19th century Britain. Their Six Point Charter listed demands from the establishment, to allow the working man to have a democratic voice. Indeed, we have since adopted all of those points but one (we’ve rejected annual elections) as the building blocks for our modern democracy. I should add that the Chartists, at the time, were all imprisoned for their efforts.

Eventual success by the Chartists led to the adoption of one-man-one-vote and paid electorates. This led inevitably to working men founding Labour Parties across the commonwealth in the 20th century. Let’s have a look at their record today, say, in New Zealand. How many radical acts or policies do you remember to come out of the “Labour” party in modern times? How many working men in the street would say that the $150,000-earning Labour electorates are in touch with them? There aren’t many voices coming out of the Labour party in support of the Auckland wharfies, are there? Does anyone else find it cynical that such Labour Party hacks are creeping out the wordwork only when the Auckland wharfies dispute has gained mass, popular support? And I wonder how fewer would be those supporting Labour politicians, if Labour was in power managing the dispute?! Despite 11 years in power by our so-called Labour Party, New Zealand is still a right-wing country.

And here’s the comparison: politics is exactly like sport for the working man. As soon as you have a professional sport, paid representatives, it stops being the every-man’s game. It becomes A BUSINESS for the Executive Class to milk. The problem is that working men still think that the legacy sport is “there’s.” Take soccer in the UK. Long ago, former players would end up as coaches, and subsequently form part of the (voluntary or averagely-paid) board of the club. Many a working man still goes to the matches on a Saturday afternoon, but working men no longer run those clubs. A swathe of rich owners and executives own the sport in the UK. How few of those soccer executives actually played the game in the past?


And that scenario is the same for rugby league. Mark Latham’s article is true on the history, but the working man no longer owns rugby league. I find it supremely ironic that Mark Latham, former Australian Federal Labor leader, has written this article. I agree when he says, “rugby league has … maintained its working-class fan base” but I would add that working men have been deceived into thinking that they still own the game. In the same way, we no longer own rugby union here in New Zealand. It is owned by the sponsors and Sky TV. We have sold our soul to the devil (pictured left).


However, the ball sports executives still need the collective money and the collective viewing figures of the working men to feed the game – which is why the illusion is maintained. The ball sports still need the TV ratings to allow the corporate sponsors to sell to the fans. Yet, it is these very corporate sponsors which, like parasites, threaten all ball sports by deluding the working man. Social commentator John Clarke (pictured right) expressed that Sky sports would love nothing else for rugby union than the stadium to be filled with corporate boxes, and the working man sit at home watching the game on Sky – being sold to by adverts and sponsors.

Indeed, I’ll tell you where all these football codes are going. The working men still thinks the team is “Their Team.” Southern men still believe that the Highlanders are from Otago!! The thugs at Chelsea still scream at rival London fans, as they watch “Their Team” compete. But how many of those players were born, or even bred, in Chelsea? The teams from the working mens' ball sports are not “Their Teams” any longer. They are franchises. They are businesses. They are corporations. They no longer represent the working man, whatever the code of football. In America, a number of grid-iron franchises (not teams!) upped-and-left their host cities to move to other cities. The “Oakland” Raiders left Oakland in 1982 – then left Los Angeles to go back to Oakland in 1994!

Fans would become so incensed at “Their Team” leaving, some grid-iron franchises had to move city in secret, in the middle of the night, to avoid the anger from those betrayed, delusional fans. Such is the loyalty of the franchise model and corporate business to its customers – the fans.

And politics is no different. How many Labour politicians do you believe are there to genuinely make a difference for the working man? Or are they there for themselves, at the trough? That’s the dilemma and consequence of having professional politicians in the Labour Party. Sadly, I believe that Taito Philip Field was not the only one guilty – he just got caught.

In the same vein, I wonder how many of the Executive Class in rugby league are there for the sport, Mark?

Let’s leave my radical, rambling rantings finally, and focus on the sport. I’ll focus on the difference between the rugby codes. I agree with the article, to the point that League is more free-flowing. However, I love the technical aspect of the Union game. I love the set-pieces, the scrums, the mauls, and the clever, brutal conflict up-front. Rugby Union has become the thinking-man’s game, while League has become Thug Rugby. And that’s exactly how the elite at the IRB want it. As a prominent board member of the English RFU said to Will Carling (and that’s not all that bloody long ago!), “We can’t have just anybody playing this game, you know.” The IRB want to keep a certain “quality” of individual playing the game – ideally from a fee-paying school! That’s certainly happening in Australia, England and Scotland. Wales and New Zealand still seem to be resisting that, thankfully. However, I wonder with sadness, how long it will be until the IRB makes Rugby Union so complicated, that the game becomes unplayable?