THE MAORI PARTY'S HAD THE SNIP

Now here’s an interesting article:

"Maori Party focused on rebuild"  [NZ Herald, Saturday 1 November 2014]

I'm a little concerned if Te Ururoa Flavell (pictured left) truly doesn't understand why his party has lost support.  He says he doesn't understand comments about the party turning its back on Maori.  Or perhaps he’s just spinning, because the truth is too dangerous to admit.  Whether he likes it or not, the perception out there seems to be that his target voters are not as comfortable with buddying-up to the right-wing National Party as Flavell is.  If Flavell were to admit all that, he’d be admitting he’s out of touch with his voters.  And that, my friends, is called “Political Suicide.”

However, Flavell is up against John Key.  And Key is an exceptionally intelligent and astute political animal.  Key knew that the best way to neuter the Maori movement was the same way any establishment neuters a radical movement: he offeres “crumbs from the rich man’s table” [Luke 16:19-31].  Helen Clarke foolishly dismissed and underestimated the strength of the Maori movement.  John Key did not.  In fact, Clarke arrogantly took the Maori votes and the Maori seats for granted.   John Key would love to do away with Maori seats, but dare not.  Helen Clarke foolishly stated that there was “no child poverty in New Zealand.”  Cleverly, John Key said there WAS child poverty in New Zealand – he just doesn’t want to do anything about it.   The former Maori Party leader, Pita Sharples, claims the Maori Party has achieved much for Maori since aligning itself with the National Party;  

• “influence on the poverty committee”
• “paid parental [leave]"
• “free medicine at the doctors for the young”

Strangely enough, Sharples won’t be drawn on if he would have secured more for Maori in a Labour coalition, or whether the “achievements” above would have happened in committee as a matter of course. I would suggest to you that health, poverty, obesity, and smoking are the issues pressing for Maori, not crumbs or the damn flag:

• From 1997 to 2012/13, adult NZ obesity in NZ has increased by 19%.  48% of those obese were Maori, compared with the 31% NZ average.
• Nigel Latta, eminent NZ psychologist, demonstrated that institutionalised sugar additions to food is increasing our obesity, increasing our diabetes rate, and it’s killing us.  
  
•          77% of Māori deaths are before 75 years of age compared with just 34% of non–Māori (see graphical comparison, right)
• Former National MP and food Industry spokesperson, Katherine Rich, says claims from anti-sugar researchers are “hysterical.” 
•   There are up to 300,000 diabetics in NZ.  Diabetes is most common among Māori and Pacific Islanders. They’re three times as likely to get diabetes as other New Zealanders.
•   The numbers of Maori in poverty are roughly double that of Pakeha [European ethnicity] rate.
•   Katherine Rich claims that, despite high-powered brand marketing, and the fact that bottled water is more expensive than fizzy drinks, consumers still have “choices.”
•   Māori children are over-represented in child poverty statistics.  
•   John Key seems to be tough-on-smoking; the tobacco law of 2012 means tobacco products can no longer be displayed in public view in retail outlets.
  
• Despite the Maori Party wanting to make New Zealand smokefree by 2025, John Key says his government was unlikely to ever ban smoking.  It would be ''tremendously difficult''.  
• In the run up to the 2014 NZ election, Maori Party ratings decline, and John Key gifts seats to Todd Barclay and Chris Bishop (pictured right). They used to work for Philip Morris Tobacco and are now National MPs. 
• Leaked TPPA documents reveal there is currently a section in the TPPA that would allow Philip Morris to sue NZ over its anti-smoking legislation in an international disputes court.

The reality for Flavell, is that many of the issues above - that SHOULD concern Maori leaders deeply - will NOT be addressed by this corporate-friendly National Government.  This government will NOT be taken to account by the current Maroi-National arrangement.

John Key has done a superb job, in completely fracturing the left vote.  Key must be laughing his socks off at Labour being squeezed in between National and the Greens, as Labour feels it should go right not left.  However, Key may have watched the Maori Party strip the Maori seats from Labour, with perhaps some concern.  Hence, Key must have pondered on how he can neutralise this growing, pervasive force for change.

So, by “inviting” Maori into government (when a National Government doesn't actually need to!), Key has turned a potentially strong, radical, opposition wolf . . . into a meek, gelded lamb.  

FURTHER READING:

Obesity; 

http://www.health.govt.nz/nz-health-statistics/health-statistics-and-data-sets/obesity-data-and-stats

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11142268

http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago072102.html

Diabetes;

http://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/conditions-and-treatments/diseases-and-illnesses/diabetes

http://www.maoridiabetes.co.nz/

http://www.midlandshn.health.nz/uploads/maori-health-profile-2012-v3.pdf

Smoking;  

http://www.cantobacco.org.nz/the-issues/m%C4%81ori-and-smoking
http://www.quit.org.nz/file/research/factsAndFigures/maori-smoking-tobacco-use09.pdf
http://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/maori-smoking-tobacco-use-2011.pdf

TECHNOLOGY: A PLAGUE ON OUR HOUSES

Now here’s an interesting article;

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

 

I read the article again, and it took me back to the early days of my career at NCR and British Telecom.  Then and there, I loved working with pioneering technology.  In the nineties, I was selling 802.11 (now called wi-fi) as early as 1991, I worked with PC-based video conferencing (pre-Skype) and even tablet PCs.  Email was being touted around London-based Head Offices as “The Next Big Thing.” 

And it’s one of the reasons I’ve virtually stuck two fingers up at my former profession. In those early nineties, when we were flogging email around the financial institutions in London, we told them that it would increase productivity and information flow.  We described how it would usher in the paperless office.  We added that it would save money and give companies a competitive edge.

Well, wharalorrabollox that turned out to be. Now that every major organisation in the world has email, how has it worked out? 

• Productivity has plummeted as staff spend more time reading joke emails than actually working.
• Information flow has ground to a halt as staff are flooded with more emails than they can realistically answer in any single day.
• The paperless office has been revealed as a myth, when staff actually print out multiple copies of their emails.
• Businesses and other organisations are forced to spend more money on network bandwidth as LANs are swamped by emails with unnecessarily large attachments.
• The competitive edge is a fallacy, because now every company has adopted email and is wallowing in the same quagmire.

      My wife spits disgust at the latest fad technologies, and I don't blame her.  She marvels with cynicism at the revolution of Smartphones, Facebook, Google Glass, tablets and more.  But has it solved world peace?  Has it solved world poverty?  Has it solved starvation in Africa?  Of course it hasn’t.  The technology industry now produces frivolous toys; gadgets and gimmicks.  Indeed, the once-proud, high-status technology industry is now at risk of lowering itself to that of a ridiculous, joke, farce industry - like fashion:

• Kids now confine themselves – even more – to their bedrooms, sending thousands of text messages, when they could actually talk to their friends.
• Teenagers become further reclusive.  How many people think THIS is a serious news article?
• Families spend less quality time together as members sit in different rooms with their own, individual internet devices.
• Couples go out and play on their Smartphones, instead of enjoying intimacy.
• Kids discover violence and porn earlier, as technology makes such objectionable material more accessible. 
• Technology companies find even more ways to tie us to our de-sensitising screens, with glasses, more games, and newer, irrelevant operating systems.
• Employees stop talking to each other, as trust goes out the window in an email-blame exchange.

It is with a little shame and guilt that I look back at what we sold back then, and how we sold it.  However, the failings of what we in the IT industry sold didn’t become apparent for many years.  In contrast, the failings of today’s technology are staring us in the face right now.  The question is, what are we going to do about it?

TONY'S BEEN "SUCCESSFUL"

Now here’s an interesting article;

“Tony Ryall to Quit Politics” [Stuff.co.nz. 28 Feb 2014]

Last night, my wife and I had a “disagreement” about Mr Ryall.  The Ball-and-Chain tells me he’s the most successful Health Minister we’ve had in years.  What!!!!!????  Are you kidding???  And how the hell do you define him as “successful?”  I ask.

“Because there have been few health stories in the news,” says the Trouble-and-Strife.

Wait a minute.  Because there have been few adverse Health stories in the news, that means there are no waiting queues, there are no people being bumped off the waiting lists, and there are no employment or structural problems in the DHB?  Well, apparently, that’s correct; Mr Ryall has been “successful.”  So by that logic, the UN has been “successful” in countering poverty in Africa, the US has been “successful” in its treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and Putin has been “successful” in restoring democracy to Russia.

Let me tell you of a couple of MY observations on this “successful” Health Minister:

I was asked to help write a letter to Tony Ryall, about my friend’s problems while working in the health sector.  My friend encountered bullying, intimidation and lies in her work.  We knew if we wrote to Ryall about the workplace, he would merely bounce it back to the District Health Board (DHB) and say, “It’s an employment issue."  So, we planned another meeting at the workplace and we secured recorded evidence of the serious lies. These were lies that could well have threatened patient safety.  In good faith, we wrote to Ryall about that, asking for his help.  We stated specifically that this was NOT an employment issue and asked specifically that this NOT be bounced back to the DHB.  In the next meeting, my friend was asked by her protagonists if this meeting was being recorded!  WTF??!!  So guess what?  Ryall had indeed bounced the matter back to the DHB, saying “This is an employment issue.”  Again, I say to you that this was NOT an employment issue, but one of lies and patient care.  Ryall hadn’t read the letter properly, he hadn’t taken care, and he wasn’t interested because there were no perceived headlines (adverse or otherwise) to grab.

And do you remember this documentary;

"Inside Child Poverty: A Special Report" [TV3, Bryan Bruce, Nov 2011]

Yes, the documentary was one-sided.  Yes, it was shown at the height of a general election.  But, yes, it PROVED that a New Zealand school dinner programme could be launched and sustained for impoverished children for no extra cost to the taxpayer, whatsoever.  And Tony Ryall’s reaction to this startling revelation?  “Well, we don’t want to get to a nanny state!” For me, it showed Tony's true colours, in another of his many, various guises.

Frankly, Tony, we DO need to nanny-state some families.  Because, if  your government had been successful – and I mean SUCCESSFUL – at educating are lower-decile families to take responsibility, then we wouldn’t NEED a school dinner programme - or child poverty documentaries.  But, nooooooo . . .  Tony’s government prefers to starve the public education sector of funds and pump money into the elite private education sector instead.  Tony’s government prefers to “leave things to the market” [Gerry Brownlee, Christchurch, June 2011].  Tony’s government prefers to lump more responsibility on uneducated families and hope they’ll swim, not sink.

I think it’s disgraceful that this flippant, boorish, unfeeling ARSE can be defined as "successful," merely because he has suppressed any adverse publicity.  I say, good riddance to bad rubbish.  But then, he’ll probably be replaced by some other rock-hearted, right-wing hack.  **sigh**

BABY BOOMERS HAVEN’T EARNED OUR RESPECT

Now here’s an interesting article:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/8138868/Why-I-hate-the-baby-boomers

My wife and I had an interesting discussion with a Baby Boomer the other night - my father-in-law. He took my wife and I to task over the fact that we don’t answer the phone every time it rings. Oh, he was quite upset. When HE rings, and he knows we’re in, he expects us to pick up the phone every time. You see, whenever anyone rings HIM, he ALWAYS answers the phone. ** sigh**

So not only have the Baby Boomers shagged up the economies of the Western World with their greed, they now have the gall to tell their offspring how to live their lives.

My wife explained patiently to her father, that we have caller ID, so we can see that a call is “Private” or from India, or Malaysia. This usually means it’s from an oversea call centre and it’s a junk call. Curiously enough, we ignore these. I added that we are vindicated when callers from these sources don’t leave messages. If they really wanted to speak to us, they’d leave a message and politely ask us to call. Given the regularity of these junk calls – as the children of Baby Boomers all know – it’s no wonder we screen our calls.

Then my wife ramped up to full throttle: “And Dad, I am NOT going to drop everything to answer your call when I am putting my children to bed. I am NOT going to drop everything to answer your call when we are sitting down at the family dinner table to eat. And I am NOT going to drop everything to answer your call when I am watching my favourite TV programme that might not be repeated.”  My experience is this is typical demanding-of-respect behaviour of the Baby Boomer generation, at the same time missing how we have to live our lives. Now I'm not saying that every Baby Boomer is like this, or that there are no progressive Baby Boomers. But, it's curious how many stories around my peers have similar stories to ours. So, for those with enlightened parents of the Baby Boomer generation, you're going to have to forgive what you see as, my generalisations.

You know, when the Baby Boomers were growing up, they had free health care, free education, free eye care, regular pay rises and job security. Housing was much more affordable, as a much lower proportion of the home income. Mysteriously, that all vanished from the eighties onward.

Actually, it’s not mysterious at all - the Baby Boomers got greedy. They bought into the spin of the right wing hacks of Regan, Thatcher, Muldoon and Roger Douglas – and sold our future down the river. On the promise of tax cuts, they voted in monetarist governments who sold our assets, and mortgaged our futures. Oh yes, the Middle Class Baby Boomers got their little tax cuts – but so did the rich. As a consequence, all those free services had to go out the window to pay for tax cuts to the wealthy. We are still paying for that massive shift to the right, even today, and we’re STILL falling for the same old right-wing spin. I think this New Zealand election poster parody, above, sums it up just right.

Baby Boomers were bought cheap with “crumbs from the rich man’s table” [Luke 16:19-31]. They were sold tax cuts by right-wing parties, so those parties could justify tax cuts for their already-wealthy business financiers. But those tax cuts had to be funded somehow. And thus the Baby Boomers ushered in a new age of consumerist selfishness combined with job hardship. Some Baby Boomers say, “Don’t blame us, blame the governments.” Well who the hell voted in those governments? The Voting Fairies??!!!! So, yes, I do blame you!

As a result of that shift to the right, the children of the Baby Boomers have to work longer than their parents, harder and more efficiently under the watchful, critical eye of dictatorial corporations. Conversely, the directors of these corporations are free to award themselves unfettered pay rises each year, freed from the tempering influence of strong trade unions:

"NZ rich-poor gap widens faster than rest of world"
"Wealth gap widens to 30-year high"

As I wrap up my thoughts to you, I realise I actually share something with the Baby Boomers (apart from their damn genes). Our parents have this old fashioned view that respect should be earned – and I subscribe to that! Yet, when I was growing up, it was clear that while they SAID respect was earned, for them respect was in fact DEMANDED of us. Look at the demanding from my wife’s father, in the example above. As for me, did anybody else cop “Respect your elders and betters!!”? I lost count of the times the Old Man roared that one at me.

So, here’s the thing that really irks me about the Baby Boomers: we have to work harder, longer, under greater pressure, with less job security, and for less pay in real terms. We have to pay for things our parents got for free, our homes cost more of our take-home pay, and we have to fund our own pensions. Yet, the Baby Boomers still have the GALL to demand our respect.

Frankly, with the way we’ve been left in the lurch, the Baby Boomers don’t deserve the respect of their children. They haven’t fucking earned it.

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