MY NAME IS NZRU, AND I AM AN ALCOHOLIC

Now here’s an interesting article:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/8205152/Zac-Guildford-has-said-hes-sorry-friend

The problem for Zac Guildford is that he is surrounded by alcohol – no wonder he can’t get away from the bottle. I’m not talking solely about when Guildford is with his mates. I’m not even talking about the amount of alcohol involved in sponsoring rugby. I'm talking about the fact that alcohol advertising is simply EVERYWHERE; billboards, radio, TV, magazines, to name but a few. And invariably, the visuals feature rugby players or rugby supporters. It's fair to say that rugby has an age-old association with beer:

• Speights and Otago rugby are Dunedin’s oldest married couple 
• DB Draft has been cuckolded by the CRFU, in favour of the gold-digging Tui.  
• Steinlager and the NZRU might no longer be married, but the union still enjoys a cheeky one with its old favourite, now cleverly labelled “a commercial partner.” 
• And let’s not even talk about the international dominatrix, Heineken…

Like Zac Guildford, New Zealand rugby has a few drinking buddies, too. Well, if Guildford can be labled as an alcoholic, then surely NZRU has a drinking problem too. By that, I mean the NZRFU is just as addicted. It can’t do without the booze. Of course, with any alcoholic, the first step is in acknowledging the problem:

“Drs Kerry O'Brien and Kypros Kypri’s … 2008 study established an undeniable link between alcohol sponsorship in sport and increased liquor consumption among sports people. It's the elephant in the room, but rugby has buried its head like an ostrich when it comes to booze sponsorship.” [Richard Boock, Sunday Star Times, 6 February 2011]

Frankly, I’m amazed that more prominent rugby players haven't fallen foul of alcohol.

Then, as I was writing, I received an email on the back of my Canterbury Rugby season ticket! The email was entitled "Rugby, Beer & an Amazing Prize."  This is the survey the email asked me to complete:

http://questionpro.com/t/co5qyzjt3ov

Look at the questions!! This is ALL about the association between rugby and beer! As I went through the questions, I had a sense it was being conducted on behalf of Tui Beer. The survey looked like it was trying to quantify Tui’s efforts to break the stranglehold that Steinlager, Speights and DB Draft has here on Southern man. The idea, of course, is that if Tui can get that brand association with rugby right, then the lucrative beer sales follow from swilling rugby-heads like me. This north island brew already has a ring on the finger of the CRFU, and it would love to make the arrangement permanent. In that courtship, Tui has negotiated an exclusive deal with the country’s most successful rugby union. So when we go to see Canterbury and the Crusaders play at Christchurch Stadium, we can only buy Tui beer. Now, Tui might think that having a beer monopoly at Canterbury rugby games would help improve the brand association with rugby. I rather think that having a decent beer at a decent price helps.

Yes, I am an alcoholic sucker prepared to pay $24 for FOUR beers (yes, for just four beers in plastic bottles) at rugby games. And yes, I know that I can get the TWELVE of the same beers for the same price at the local supermarket, as soon as I walk out the stadium. But I don’t. Indeed, I am bitter and resentful at having to pay that ridiculous price at games – and have no damn choice about it (other than to drink or not drink). In fact, Tui’s efforts on me have backfired; I don’t buy Tui – on principle – when I drink at home or in the pub. I hope I have shown that in my survey responses.

So, clearly, this survey is trying to measure a particular association between rugby and beer. The sad, hypocritical thing is that Zac Guildford is living the dream association; playing rugby and drinking beer.

“Let he who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone...” [John 8:7]

Zac Guildford is not some thug with a drink problem. He is a stalwart, good, community man who has a drink problem. In that, he is little different to many of us. I am not condoning his behaviour, but he has copped it more than we would, because good public behaviour is part of his job description. As THIS article shows, Guildford’s character is otherwise quietly exemplary. But, when you falter in your job, shouldn’t your employer be there to help? Stu Bailey (pictured right) has hit it right on the head when he criticised Steve Tew (current NZRU CEO), for not contacting Bailey for advice. Remember, Bailey is a close friend and flatmate. I would suggest that such contact with Guildford or Bailey, in a moment of public support, would put Tew right in the hypocritical limelight, on the darker side of the association between rugby and beer. You see, Steve Tew, the face of the NZRU, doesn’t want to acknowledge the bigger problem. I guess we’ll never hear those immortal words;

“My name is NZRU and I am an alcoholic.”

FURTHER READING:

http://www.testpattern.co.nz/columns/desley-horton/its-billboards-yeah-right

http://www.3news.co.nz/Liquor-companies-look-to-lobby-via-NZRU/tabid/1607/articleID/261329/Default.aspx

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10860759

http://www.3news.co.nz/Friend-says-NZRU-let-Guildford-down/tabid/415/articleID/284001/Default.aspx 

http://www.3news.co.nz/NZ-doesnt-know-the-real-Zac-Guildford-says-friend/tabid/317/articleID/284022/Default.aspx

http://www.nzru.co.nz/members_partners/sponsors

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/8220978/Zac-Guildford-lights-up-cancer-sufferers-life

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/our-experts/8205144/Spare-a-thought-for-coach-in-Guildford-saga

LYING WORKS

Now here are some interesting articles:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7981507/Generation-Ys-telling-a-pack-of-lies

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7981619/John-Key-I-ve-never-lied-about-Kim-Dotcom

http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/sport/national-sport/8203020/Lance-Armstrong-still-lying-Tyler-Hamilton

We were horrified when we caught our 6 year old son lying the other week. His lying was so skilful, it was physical evidence that gave him away, not any intonation or facial nuances. It was brilliant but frightening. My wife asked me how we should handle it. So here’s my dilemma; I was divided as to whether to punish him or congratulate him on his skill(!). I pointed my wife to the reality of today’s ethics, and that the news is full of significant figures in our lives accused of lying or caught telling lies; Lance Armstrong, Winston Peters, Prime Minister Key, ACC managers... It seems the list of public figures accused of lying is endless.

In fact, as I talk about individuals, I can’t even call it “lying” for fear of said parties litigating me! I have to apply the words, “spin” or “lack-or-recall,” or even “distorting the truth,” depending on the potential litigant. This is because, it would appear, that in today’s acceptance of “lying,” calling someone a liar is as horrific a crime as the lie itself - even if it's the truth! (Yes, that's confusing. But if you read it again, you know what I mean.)

I have become, sadly, experienced and observant in identifying lying and cynical spin. We took our next door neighbour to court to obtain a Restraining Order for continued abusive harassment. Reading her affidavits, we were stunned at her lies, denial, deceit and clever manipulation of events for her own ends. We were totally naïve and unprepared for this and the cynical court experience. And the result? My wife, as the Applicant, had to agree to a Restraining Order on herself so that we could secure the Restraining Order we needed on our neighbour. In other words, all that lying and spinning meant she escaped the exclusive Restraining Order that the judge should have slapped solely on her. Because, lying works.

Everything we laid out in our affidavits (and I mean every incident, every statement, and every paragraph!) was denied, spun or lied about in her opposing affidavits. Her spin apparently put judge Michael Crosbie’s thinking well into the “grey,” leading Crosbie to believe the truth must be in the middle somewhere. Because judges encounter lies, spin and denial all day, every day, I’m sure it never even occurred to Crosbie that we might actually be telling the complete truth. Clearly, for our neighbour, lying worked.

We felt Crosbie’s handling of our case was so shocking - dubious at best - we made a formal deposition to the Judicial Conduct Commission. In our submission, we quoted many of Crosbie’s facetious remarks. We requested access to the tape of the court recording for verification of Crosbie’s comments. Of course, we were denied it. In the Commissioner’s response to us, parts (not all!) of Crosbie’s written reply were contained therein. We were shocked by even the spin in Crosbie’s response, twisting his own remarks and what we had said, for his own end. We felt it made a mockery of the judicial accountability process. Unsurprisingly, the judge wasn’t sanctioned or disciplined. Because, spinning works.

Peter Uiberall, an interpreter in the Nuremberg trials of 1945, noted that Herman Goring believed so strongly in what he testified, coupled with the clever way that he said it, that he probably didn’t have to tell many pure lies.

“I don’t think that Goring had to do much lying in the witness box.” [Peter Uiberall]

For some reason, this quote always reminds me of our gallant Prime Minster, John Key. I’m sure John Key would never admit to lying. He phrases things so cleverly – like Goering - that he probably rarely needs to lie. However, can his phrase “I don’t recall” be construed as lying? Some would say that lack-of-recall is a choice, not a lie. So then, “I don’t recall” becomes spin, not lies. So, he doesn’t have to sack John Banks, or stand down over the Kim Dotcom fiasco.

Let's hark back to his 2008 speech to Public Sector workers. He said there would no redundancies. and asset sales “probably wouldn’t happen.” Here we are today: asset sales are being pushed through and John Key has shed more than 2,500 public sector jobs. And yet he's STILL preferred Prime Minister in the polls. You'll still vote for him. Because, spinning works.

And look at the outrageous “distorted recollection” of these two, mysteriously-unnamed, ACC bureaucrats (pictured right). They’re the ones who tried to defame Bronwyn Pullar with false claims of threats and blackmail. ACC CEO Ralph Stewart spun to the nation that “the [managers'] report is accurate.” And that’s after Stewart heard a tape recording of the meeting in question! I suspect that, despite their disgraceful behaviour, those ACC managers will still have their jobs. Oh, perhaps not in the same department, or even within ACC, but I’m sure they’ll turn up like bad pennies in another cushy job somewhere else. Because, lying works.

We’re moving into an age where we collectively accept spin, denial and lack-or-recall so readily, we don’t know truth from lies. In fact, there have been whole books written about “living in the grey.” “Truth” and “lies” are old fashioned terms, you see. “Truth and “lies” are unhelpful extremes, no longer applicable in our modern world. Sadly, I agree – but it doesn’t help my despair. We have all contributed to having arrived at that shit, muddy place.

We’re moving into an age where lies, denial and spin are commonplace, and “telling the truth” (gasp!) has become replaced by the spin doctors as “living in the grey – somewhere in between.” We’re moving into an age where lies, denial and spin WORK. Going back to my leading articles, look at the at the amount of deceit public figures, such as John Key - leader figures, supposedly - have been caught up in recently. They're avoiding the consequences of their actions. As an example, I predict you’ll still vote for Key. On target for his third term, he'll wriggle out of trouble. Because lying and spinning works.

I’m disturbed that, as such behaviour proliferates across our society, good honest people will have no option but to carry a recording device 24 hours a day. Sadly, I can see a time when I will have to recall such recordings myself, when my true version in verbal dealings with ACC, EQC, insurance companies, or any damn corporation, are distorted or denied. Because, without such recordings, lying works.

And here we come back to my son. What’s the life lesson here? That lying catches up with you, like Lance Armstrong? It doesn’t seem to with some people. What could I say to my wife? “But powerful and successful people lie and spin all the time, dear! It’s maybe why they’re powerful and successful – because lying works. Shouldn’t we start our son early, as he has done already?” I’m kidding, of course. So we didn’t encourage my son’s new-found skill. As Bronwyn Pullar would say, we understand ethics, we understand the difference between right and wrong. So we had to punish him.

FURTHER READING:

http://www.tv3.co.nz/November-11th---The-Eye-of-the-Storm/tabid/1343/articleID/77788/Default.aspx

http://ondemand.tv3.co.nz/60-Minutes-The-Eye-of-the-Storm/tabid/59/articleID/6789/MCat/22/Default.aspx

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/8179377/Your-view-Where-is-the-integrity

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7983729/Bosses-cook-up-story-to-sack-chef

http://thestandard.org.nz/category/government-and-politics/politicans/john-banks/

http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/tag/john-banks/

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10802867

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

BORED? THEN BUY THE NEXT BIG THING!

Now here’s an interesting article:

"It's time for 'the next big thing'" [Aardvark, 15 January 2013]

This is another article from my favourite blogger. And the reason he’s my favourite blogger, is that he makes me think.

To summarise, Aardvark says there is a decline in Facebook and Twitter numbers, and sales of iPhones are falling – “so what’s the next big thing?”

What is interesting for me is, not “what’s the next best thing?” but “why have people become bored with the last big thing?” I think that says volumes about our consumerist, disposable society. In order for capitalism to survive, it must grow. In order for capitalism to grow, it must produce more to sell. In order for capitalism to sell, it must take market share away from the competition, or convince consumers to buy more. If capitalism can’t do that, it must convince consumers to throw out what they used to have, for the new product – the “next big thing.” And that, my friends, is the root of the problem with our throw-away society.

As I write, I’m listening to my children bickering over whose-is-whose Lego. I am badgered by whines of how it’s THEIR Lego, and how their siblings can’t play with it: “I don’t have much Lego!” “It’s MY Lego,” and “I need MORE Lego!” Bikes, board games and rugby balls are all forgotten, because the “next big thing” is The Hobbit Lego - or something else. The result of all that high-powered marketing, product saturation and brand power, is that my children grow bored with what they have. Or they can never have enough. And us "adults" are little better.

However, the whining over the Lego makes me realise that our children are the most vulnerable to capitalism’s incessant pushing. Children are continually bombarded by messages to “buy, buy, BUY!” Owning becomes more important that playing. Even if “responsible” parents shield them from some of the obvious marketing, capitalism finds insidious ways to constantly shove their wares down our children’s throats; product placement, multiple billboards, sponsorship and peer pressure. Remember, we parents are trying to educate our children to resist these messages of “Buy now!” at the same time as trying to resist these messages, ourselves!

Even if the marketers aren’t saying directly, “Throw out your old product,” they are most certainly persuading us we should be bored with it. You see, we need to buy “The Next Big Thing” in the name of corporate growth.

My wife’s uncle has a great phrase; “Capitalism loves consumers.” No it doesn’t. Capitalism doesn’t even respect consumers. Capitalism sees consumers as a body to pillage and exploit with intelligence-insulting advertising and brand saturation. Call me old fashioned, but that’s not what you do to people you love or respect.

So what’s the “next big thing?” Who cares? If we’re bored, maybe it’s time to enjoy what we already have. And perhaps that means our children - without their new Lego. So now I’m off to enjoy a good old-fashioned board game with my kids.

COMPARING THE LEGACIES OF DUNBLANE AND SANDY HOOK

Now here’s an interesting article:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/games/8171793/Game-industry-defends-itself

So it begins.  The highly skilled, highly-paid corporate spin doctors move in to muddy the gun control debate and create smoke and mirrors.  The spin against gun control is not conducted on behalf of citizens’ rights, the dead children, or child safety.  The spin is woven by those corporations who are feeling the threat of impending controls, resulting from the Sandy Hook Massacre.

Vice-President Biden is “welcoming” input as he forms his recommendations on gun control.  Against all the popular evidence and anecdotes that we’re familiar with, the gaming industry says that violent crime is DOWN because of violent video games.  Well, by that logic, we should simply remove all age classification on video games and films.  Because clearly, the gaming industry’s logic purports that the more screen violence that our kids are exposed to, the more violent crime is reduced.  Yeah right.

However, it is this quote, below, which speaks volumes about America’s acceptance of violence, its gun culture, and the hold corporations have on their government:

“Gun-safety activists were coalescing around expanded background checks as a key goal for the vice president's task force. Some advocates said it may be more politically realistic - and even more effective as policy - than reinstating a ban on assault weapons.” [stuff.co.nz]

If that is the best that America could do, after such an unacceptable loss of fledgling life, then there truly is no hope for that country.  Remember, Adam Lanza took his mother’s guns.  A background check would not have prevented Sandy Hook in 2012, just as a background check would not have prevented Westside Middle School in 1998.  A retail weapons ban would have.

“The National Rifle Association says that guns don’t kill people, people do – but I think the gun helps” [Eddie Izzard]

Arguments against gun controls is a classic illustration that, in America especially, we DON'T live in a democracy.  Judging by the outcry, the people want controls on assault weapons, but it simply ain't happenin'.  We don't live in a democracy; we live a corporate-dominated manipulation of The People - loosely described as a democracy.  The arguments against gun controls have nothing to do with protection, citizens' rights, or freedom to bear arms.  We all know that the spin against gun control – control which has thus far proven successful in the UK - has everything to do with powerful gun businesses and their interests.

Look at the incredible fact that gun sales have gone up in the wake of Sandy Hook.  It’s a perfect example of corporate money changing, and thus buying, public opinion.  The gun lobby has done such an amazing number on the people of America that they think they will all be safer by buying more guns.  I find it supremely ironic that those same mid-west Americans taking up more guns would be among the first to quote the bible on another day: “…they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" [Matthew 26:52, King James].

 Even my favourite blogger seems to baulk at any kind of gun ban:

“Unfortunately, given the nature of man, I don't think there is any way to stop these mass killings. Even if we could take away all the guns, the murderers would make bombs, use poisons or find some other way of taking the lives of others.” [Bruce Simpson, Aardvark]

Well, I can’t see a future Thomas Hamilton, Johnson-Golden or Adam Lanza killing up to 26 kids by poison, knives or sharp sticks – can you?  And the bombs to kill 26 are not as easy to make or source as you might think.  

My own perspective - as a Scot - comes from a beautiful, quiet town near where I grew up; Dunblane.

Following the deaths of 16 children by shooter Thomas Hamilton in 1996, the UK government hammered gun users and issued tighter gun controls.  Gun clubs and gun users moaned and groaned that they could only use air pistols.  The moans of the gun club, in my opinion, were a small price to pay for preventing future “Dunblanes”.  I believe that, in contrast to America, the UK government has implemented EFFECTIVE gun control following the Dunblane Massacre.  How do I define “effective”?  Well, the fact is that since that unprecedented and radical step in the UK, there have been no school killings or similar massacres in Scotland since.

Yes, yes, yes, I know that the IRA and Al Quaeda are able to use guns in the UK.  They're not idiots like Adam Lanza, raiding mummy's gun cabinet.  Their soldiers can wield weapons in the UK because they have skilled and wealthy international organisations that can smuggle guns across borders.  It’s fair to say that gun controls probably wouldn’t affect the operations of Al Quaeda or the IRA.  

However, tighter gun controls in the UK have meant that loose cannons and deranged personalities like Thomas Hamilton and Adam Lanza haven't been able to get guns when they pop their marbles. I think it's fair to say that those kinds of massacres will not stop unless Obama delivers radical change.

So, I hope I am not patronising any of the Dunblane survivors, when I say that the legacy of the Dunblane Massacre is gun control that has worked.  As a contrast, the survivors and bereaved of Sandy Hook must be watching the cynical, political debate on gun control with absolute despair.

I think Obama, in his quest for effective gun control, will be hamstrung by the system and his political adversaries.  Frankly, I think it will take the death of the child of a gun lobbyist, or a child of a pistol-toting Republican Senator, to bring about real change.  And even then, I question whether the said affected father will have the integrity to change his tune.

FURTHER READING:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/8084565/27-dead-in-Connecticut-school-shooting

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/02/us-usa-guns-record-idUSBRE9010H020130102
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/17/world/europe/dunblane-lessons/

http://www.interestingprojects.com/discussions/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1365

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/8095327/Gun-group-takes-down-Facebook-page

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/a-school-shooting-in-jonesboro-arkansas-kills-five

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Johnson_and_Andrew_Golden

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/