The Age of Innocence

“I was a daisy fresh girl and look what you've done to me.” (Lolita)

I saw an article in the local paper the other day about alleged sexual relations between a high school teacher and a student. As per usual, there was outrage. Sure, the student was 16 or 17 while the teacher was something like 33, but what’s the big deal? Don’t get me wrong, I ain’t defending pedos here. It’s just that we heard of lots of relationships where a senior citizen is with someone more than 18 years younger and we don’t scoff at these relationships (at least not in the same way that we do those like that involving the abovementioned teacher). So what’s the big deal with the one and not the other?

I think most people think the differentiating quality is that the student/teacher relationship is one of trust and authority. But is that really all? I’ve heard of professors fornicating with first year undergrads and that tends to garner the same sort of response as the Hugh Hefner-plus-playmates type relationships rather than something similar to the teacher/student response. With the prof-esque relationship the one party is only a couple hundred days older than her high school counterpart. And, the prof has a position of trust and authority not unlike that of a high school teacher. So, surely, a position of trust and authority can’t be that which grounds our moral outrage. So what makes us boo-hiss the teacher/student relationship but not the professor/undergrad relationship?

It seems that the younger people are the greater significance we place on an age gap (when talking about romantic relations). After all, a 17 or 18 year old who dates a 15 year old is going to muster a different reaction from the 15 year old’s mommy than the kind of reaction a 27 year old would get out of the parents of a 22 year old. As we get older, an age gap just seems to matter less. So maybe it has something to do with maturity and autonomy. These are things that come in degrees and, as we get older, we tend to gain more of each. As such it just so happens that we think the younger someone is the less mature and autonomous they are; meaning the younger they are the more they need to be protected (since immature people who are only somewhat autonomous need to be protected). Maybe that’s what our moral repugnance towards age gaps involving teenagers is based on. If so, that seems to suggest that, after all, trust and authority ARE a key part – insofar as anyone older than some sweet young thing is in a de facto position of trust and authority in virtue of an absence of maturity and autonomy in the younger partner. So, in older pairings (e.g. the prof/undergrad) the fact that it's a relationship of trust and authority is outweighed by enough maturity and autonomy.

Although, even if this is right, it can’t be the whole story. That is, it doesn’t get us an explanation as to why we’ve set the late teens as the benchmark for when someone can (more) legitimately get involved with an older person. That age just seems so arbitrary. Why, after all, is the age of 18 significant for things, like going to fight a war, consuming alcohol and tobacco, and being involved in the production of pornography?

Really, it’s not. Sure, we could ask why not 17? Or 19? They’d work just as well. But that’s not the point. The point is that, for the law to work, a specific focal point is required. That age is just a focal point – a benchmark agreed upon by convention because some benchmark was necessary. When we talk about other things – like when it becomes socially acceptable to date someone younger than you – something so precise isn’t necessary. We can make due with a vaguer focal point. So, I think, the arbitrariness of the late teens turns out to not be such a big deal.

It seems to me that our need for some kinds of focal point, coupled with the fact that older folk are always in a position of trust and authority with younger once, explains our attitudes towards the aged romancing the fresh. Our inability to clearly identify which cases are repugnant and which are just unsettling stems from the vague nature of our focal point. But that’s ok; we don't need to draw a fine line. It's ok for us to boo-hiss the teacher/students, shrug at the Hugh Hefners, and be uncertain about the prof/undergrads. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. I fear that wasn't as clear as it needed to be. It's just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

Gamer’s Paradise Lost

“With great power comes great responsibility.” (Peter Parker)

I like videogames. For instance these days I love Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. It’s owesome. If you’ve never played it, you should. If you have, you should play it more. I eagerly await Modern Warfare 2 (due out this fall, I believe). But I don’t like every videogame. Most of the games I dislike I dislike because they’ve got crappy game play or are just boring. But this one fairly new game, inFamous (available for the Playstation3), I dislike because it tells people what is, and isn’t, the morally right/wrong thing to do in certain situations. And, call me crazy, but I’m not sure people should be learning morality from video game developers.

If you’re not familiar with it inFamous is, basically, a role-playing game like Grand Theft Auto wherein you wake up (or, if you prefer, your character) with special powers after an incident. As you play the game you can run around in a city and – like the Grand Theft Auto games –do whatever you want; you can just explore and blow shit up or you can do missions. That’s all pretty run-of-the-mill. What sets inFamous apart are the moral dilemmas you’re occasionally faced with. What’s interesting is that what you decide to do in these situations determines how your character is perceived by the public (in the game) and how they interact with you. Basically, you can decide to be good (a superhero) or evil (a supervillian). An interesting game concept, I’ll admit.

And that’s all well and fine. But, and this is where my beef lies, whether your decision is the morally “good” or morally “bad” one depends on whether it conforms to the moral compass of the game developers, not whether it’s objectively right or wrong. (Or, maybe more reasonably, whether or not the decision can be tenably argued to be a morally right decision).

Take the following situation from the game: You can either save the woman you love, or you can save 6 (count ‘em, 6!) doctors. But you can’t do both. Gasp! What would you do? What would be the morally right thing to do?? Well, according to the game developers, there’s one clearly right choice: save the doctors and let your sweetheart die. Classic Utilitarianism – the potential good for the community from 6 (count ‘em 6!) doctors outweigh any potential good that might come outta your squeezetoy. But what if you were predisposed to, or in virtue of well reasoned arguments, believe in some sort of Ethics of Care morality where your greatest responsibility is to those closest to you; where what we owe to each other is dependent on the relationships we have with one another? Or some other ethical theory (e.g. Virtue Ethics, Deontology) which prescribes the saving of the gf as the right thing to do? Nope. Sorry. According to the game developers you’re morally broken and in the wrong if you (for whatever reason) don’t agree with what they think is the right thing to do. So what happens here? Your character slides a bit more towards the evil side of the scale.

Whether or not you agree that the doctors should be saved in this case is beside the point; so don’t dwell on that. So what is the big deal? (The hippy asks.) It’s just a game, right? Sure. But it’s doing more than just being a game. It’s conveying moral sentiments to impressionable minds. And the people doing the conveying (e.g. game developers) don’t have the authority to do that and aren’t authorities on what’s right or wrong. That seems problematic to me. But not just anyone can get their hands of this game, right?

Well according to The Entertainment Software Rating Board, you need to be at least a teen (13+) to play this game. Now I dunno how mandatory these ratings are – if they’re like movie ratings (i.e. it’s the law) or just friendly suggestions to mindful parents – but either way, young teenagers are still highly impressionable and media like this can hugely influencing them. It’s not my intent today to say who should teach them what’s right and wrong; all I’m saying is that, surely, it shouldn’t be a videogame.

Come to think of it, most adults are pretty impressionable too. That’s how we get riots. And poor leaders elected into office. People are, generally, stupid. And most neophytes and philistines seem to assume moral matters are too complicated for them; take what they take to be the common sense right thing to do as the thing to do or the preachings of any authority. So, more than any other subject, we should be vigilant as to who can teach us all about what’s right or wrong.

I guess all I’m saying here is that it’s offensive for a vide game to tell me I don’t know what’s the morally right thing to do in moral dilemmas. And that, were I a superhero, I’d actually be a supervillian. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. I fear that wasn't as clear as it needed to be. It's just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

p.s.: No, I don’t know what happen to Alex or why he hasn’t posted anything in AGES.

Home Improvement

“I would do anything for love, but I won't do that” (Meatloaf)

Most chicks I've asked, actually – come to think of it - maybe all chicks I've asked, are against breast implants. They’ve tried to explain it to me, but I'm still not sure why. Don’t get me wrong here – I’m not pro-big boobs or anything crazy like that. If anything I believe in a woman’s right to choose; I dream of a world in which a woman can freely decide to improve her breasts without prejudice.

Generally I think, though, that when I think about fake tits (lulz!) it's different than when chicks think of them. I think when asked about breast implants chicks (and probably some guys too) jump to oversized obviously artificial Pamela Anderson hooters circa 1991. I think it's critical to also bear in mind the more natural fake looking Pamela Anderson style knockers circa 1999. I bring this up because I don't think most reasonable non-entertainers would likely get overly large or obviously fake boobs. So let's not focus on them. Let’s consider your everyday woman. So I think it's proper to appropriately broaden our discussion here to all breast enhancement surgery. Let's focus on fake jugs that look like natural breast. But let's also consider appropriately similar operations: breast reductions and breast lifts. That means that I'm saying let's focus on reasonable kinds of breast augmentation. Once focused properly I think we can say that the prejudices that are typically attributed to un-real titties aren't applicable… I mean post surgery they probably look, basically, natural… just better than before. Right? Isn’t that the point?

Let’s look at motivations. While artificial hooters may be sought to be more sexy or whatever, that doesn't need to be the case; for instance a girl might want them because she doesn't feel like a woman with what she's naturally got. And while getting breast implants might not fix the root problem about whether she should be happy with what she naturally got, that’s a separate issue. So this seems like a good, and plausibly common, reason. But even if she DID get 'em because she thinks it'll make her sexier, so what? It's not her fault that boobs of a specific shape and size are considered sexually attractive in our contemporary western society. Nor is it her obligation to fight these societal views of what looks good. So that seems like a fine reason too.

And what would you think of someone who gets augmentation surgery because it's what her partner wants? Let's look at a specific example: Take Jenny. She's got saggy 'C' boobs. She's married to Johnny. They deeply, madly, truly love each other. Although he's never said anything to her, she knows he prefers firm'n'perky 'B' sized honkers. Would this be the right, or wrong, kind of reason for Jenny to decide on her own to go under the knife? Some dames have called me crazy for this, but I think this is a good reason (maybe even the best of all possible reasons). I mean, come on. Sure surgery and its effects can be painful, but so is a lot of stuff people do for their partners. (Going to the ballet, for example. Or building a deck.) And it’s not like he asked her to do it; she’s doing it of her own free will. The fact that this sort of thing is permanent shouldn’t make a difference either. After all, they’re married and that’s suppose to be a permanent sort of thing as well.

So there seems to me to be an unfair prejudice against chicks who opt for unnatural funbags. And that’s not cool. I mean, if there’s a lady out there who’d get the surgery, but doesn’t because of the way she’d be perceived in virtue of having gotten the surgery, that’s a real shame. Not because it means there’s one more chick in the world without nice tits, but because there’s someone in the world who’s not doing what she wants to (legally) do to her own body because of the antiquated foolhardy opinions of the neighborhood catty bitches.

As a last aside, it feels as if a lot of hippy wishy-washy feminist crap could get pulled out here. Arguments like “breast implants promulgate the subjugation of women, you insensitive jerk!” I think a lot of these sorts of arguments aren’t really worth bringing up and addressing here. So I won’t. If you think you’ve got a pretty lil rant against breast implants that’s important, write it in a comment and I’ll address it… ya jerk.

At the end of the day, breast augmentation is on the same footing as tattoos. They're permanent. They're superficial. And people reckon they make them 'more beautiful' in a relevant kinda way (relevant to how they want to be seen). They enable them to express who they really are. Or Even get a head in the world. And what’s wrong with any of that? I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. I fear that wasn't as clear as it needed to be. It's just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

Blacked Out.

Much to the disappointment of Paul D, this is the first post I have made this month. Blame exams. I have missed quite a bit over the last month. David Bain didn't kill his family. The Tamil Tigers were defeated. The New Zealand Parliament had a sex scandal. Iran's election sucked. Obama killed a fly. Michael Jackson's death completely overshadowed Farrah Fawcett's. Susan Boyle didn't win Britain's Got Talent, then she went bat-shit crazy. Paul D moved back to Canada. All of these events could, would and should, be compelling, acerbic and witty blog posts in their own right.

Alas, they have all been overshadowed.

On current form, 2009 looks set to be remembered in New Zealand history not as the year in which John Key fell down the stairs, or of the great financial crisis - or even the year of the great Eskimo debate. No, 2009 is likely to be remembered as the year the All Blacks sucked, losing to France, then struggling to beat Italy. I-T-A-L-Y!!!

This is disturbing. The All Blacks are normally good. Very Good. Consistently one of the best in the world for the last 100 years in fact. It's hard to explain the unique place that the All Blacks (New Zealand's rugby team for those of you too lazy to watch the opening video) have in the New Zealand national identity. Expectations we have of their invincibility are at odds with the usual disparaging sheepishness that we reserve for most of our national icons. (pun intended) But for whatever reason, the ethos of a team that can 'never' be defeated, even if it is in a sport most of the world hasn't heard of, seems to be ingrained in New Zealander's sense of themselves as a plucky little can-do island nation, that punches above its weight.

I know I've blogged before about how 'symbols of national identity' are largely just stuff the government either promoted to make everyone feel more patriotic, or stuff corporations promoted by preying on a misguided sense of patriotism. But I do feel, and feel free to disagree with me, that the affinity that New Zealander's share with their All Black team seem to be patriotic emotions that are more real, more natural than an affinity with say, Vegemite. I'm not sure why this is - I'm (proudly) not a sociologist. But there's a number of reasons.

Maybe it's the fact that one of the first times that New Zealander's began calling themselves 'New Zealander's' and not 'British' was in 1905, when the first All Black team toured Britain. Or maybe its the fact that some of the most closely followed events in NZ history were All Black series - see the 1956 Springbok Tour, the 1971 Lions Tour, the 1987 World Cup - or any Bledisoe Cup game over the last decade. Or maybe it was the 1981 Springbok tour, which divided the country into those protesting the South African apartheid regime vs those who just wanted to see NZ smash the Springboks. It's the closest NZ has ever come to civil war (see here for footage of the amazing flour bomb test), and cemented the importance of rugby as a key force in NZ society. Or maybe New Zealanders just like the fact that the All Blacks have changed as New Zealand society has changed - from the grizzled, cranky, high-country farmers of the 1960's, to the multiracial, strongly Polynesian outfit today.

One reason that I will controversially dismiss, is that New Zealander's love of the All Blacks stems from New Zealander's love of rugby. While it may have once been the case that every New Zealand boy spent his Saturday mornings playing rugby, every New Zealand Dad spent his Saturday mornings yelling 'encouragement' from the sideline, and every New Zealand Mum spent her Saturday mornings cutting the oranges for half-time - that is no longer, the case. Speaking as someone who reached the lofty heights of '5th Choice prop for the Rodney College 1st XV'- the majority of New Zealanders today are bereft of any aptitude for the game - and possess no interest to learn. So, in 2009, it doesnt seem to be the case that 'rugby' is an integral part of the national psyche, merely that 'All Black victories' are part of the national psyche.

This is unfortunate. While All Black victories lead to happy thoughts about New Zealand, to be in New Zealand after an All Black defeat is about as pleasant as spending a night washing Jabba the Hutt's left armpit. Defeat seems to dredge up a bunch of deep, dark thoughts by New Zealanders about New Zealand - about how maybe we aren't the tough, scrappy, little island nation that everyone hearts for trying their best - and maybe we are instead an international laughing-stock, with a bunch of sheep but very little else. It's bad enough in World Cup years, although since the All Blacks have made a habit of choking in the playoffs of every World Cup since 1987(!), New Zealanders seemed to have moved on from the disgraceful scenes of 1999, where the coach was booed in the street, and his horse spat at - to 2007, where a smattering of about 100 or so supporters turned up to show 'solidarity' with their defeated (and deflated) heroes. But in 2009, a non-World Cup year - to watch the All Blacks play like a bunch of rookies that would lose to my Grandmother's patchwork quilting group - is too much for most NZ'rs to bear.

The resulting bile that has spewed onto such auguste forums such as the NZ Herald's 'Your Views' section is depressing in its predictability. It ranges from thinly veiled racism - 'the All Blacks lose 'nowadays' because Polynesians dont have the same mental toughness of good, white, farmboys' - to allegations that they lose because they are unpatriotic -'ZOMG, they dont even sing the words to the National Anthem' - to the just plain weird - ' would someone please tell coach Graeme (sic) Henry that losing is unacceptable to ME.' It seems New Zealanders take the popping of the percieved invincibility bubble, as a direct and personal affront to themselves and their perception of their country.

On one level, the All Blacks marketers have only themselves to blame. The All Blacks have sucked in the past (in 1949, they lost TWO tests on the SAME DAY), and will suck in the future (all bets are off for the 2011 World Cup) - but to watch and listen to the marketing campaign - it is as though are invincible god-like beings. But it is incredibly unhealthy, to tie the viability of a national identity to the performance of a sports team - and to view 'victories' as intergal to the New Zealander experience. Sports teams have good trots and bad trots, its inevitable that at some point, the New Zealand team would lose a bunch of great players and have to rebuild. It is happening now, but will take a couple of years. That's a long time to spend in a funk about the future of the nation.

I'll still watch the All Blacks against Aussie and South Africa next month, even though I fear the worst - not only because I heart rugby, but also because I'm a proud New Zealander. But I'll try and keep a sense of perspective - and view these games as watching a sports team that I love undergoing a horrible run of form, and not as watching a country that I love fade into international irrelevance.

Alex

Wayward Pilgrim: A Special Report

“America is like an unfaithful lover who promised us more than we got.” (Unknown)

Having just spent a week or so livin' it up in the United States of America, it seemed appropriate to talk a bit about the place. Of course this isn't going to be a 'dear diary' kinda post – that's not what this blog, ahem, 'online magazine', is all about – maybe think of this more as a report from a foreign correspondent....?

I didn't do anything overly exciting while in the US, I'll confess. Didn't see any famous sights; didn't do anything touristy; didn't do much of anything, really. Just lazed about, drank booze, and goofed around. Actually, come to think of it, I did a lot – insomuch as I spent my time doing what Americans do. I had what you might call a 'cultural experience'. And I think this improved my perspective of the US and maybe also how Americans perceive themselves (as well as the rest of the world). After all, it (almost) goes without saying that most people haven't ever been to the US; but this doesn't stop them from poo poo-ing it and the people who live there. So it seems kinda pompous and unfair to criticize when judging from a far-off ivory tower; basing everything on 2nd hand sources (like MTV and FOX News). This cuts both ways, though, since most Americans haven't travelled abroad themselves (and, for a lot of 'em, aren't interested in ever doing so) and most of them have no reservations when it comes to judging or mouthing off any far away land.

Patriotism is one of the first things any outlander is gonna notice about this place. There are US flags everywhere. But this isn't, really, so unique when you think about it. A lot of places, especially touristy type places, have a lot of national flags hanging around. After all, they're real common in New Zealand (for instance). As are other similar signs of national identity and pride. I guess the thing that makes them stand out in the US is that they're so much bigger. But that can't be problematic – everything is the US is bigger. Bigger stores, bigger products, bigger people. It's only fitting that the flags should be bigger too.

This 'bigger equals better' mentality seems to reflect the sense of entitlement that's common to a lot of Americans. And it sounds like a lot of people – hippies, specifically – pick out capitalism as the root problem for it. But I dunno if that's right. I dunno if the problem is so much with capitalism or, rather, consumerism (something else a lot of hippies often moan about). I think consumerism and capitalism need to be distinguished: you could, in theory, see the same consumerist problem in a socialist/communist/whatever state but for the fact that such states just aren't successful enough to have enough stuff for consumerism to take hold. Capitalism is just, historically, more 'successful'... but I digress... and this is largely guess work on my part… Alex probably knows better about this sort of stuff than I. In the end patriotism in the US is probably a bad thing... I guess. (I mean, if you read and bought into Alex's boo-hiss blog post on that sort of thing.) But it certainly ain't something you can single out the US for.

If you've seen any American focused movie – especially one focused on high school or college – you might have reckoned that their society is somewhat stratified by class. But, really, it goes beyond that. The class system is, it seems once you get on soil, so deeply entrenched that it's more of a caste system: movement from one group to another, and even fraternization between groups, is surprisingly uncommon. I can only speculate on why this is… so I will. The "American Values" seems to be pertinent here. For example, the self-interested pursuit of one's own financial wealth; this seems to segregated people according to the kind of means they have to pursue that end.

Another "American Value" is freedom. Freedom, freedom, freedom. But when you get down to it, it's the kind of freedom that's like "Sure, it's your God given freedom do to that, but it's my God given freedom to kick your ass if ya do it, punk." I mean, ya, they got the freedom to be different, express different views, and whatever, but they're largely inhibited by social constraints. It's easy to say that the gay or the emo kid has the right to walk around as she sees fit. But the threat of getting a beer bottle chucked at the back of your head while out and about is a huge deterrent. So is the threat of being sued. Something else Americans love to do… but that's a whole other story.

I could also ramble here about their love of guns. But that's been done to death already by others. And, really, it's understandable. Guns are fun. I hate to say it, but when you got one in your paws it's exciting. Even if you're crazy and don't get all warm and fuzzy inside by holding a nice and shiny firearm, the US is a militaristic society. And that's another thing they think is valuable; whether or not that's a good thing is a different question. Nevertheless I certainly reckon it's tied to why the average American is a fan of the firearm.

In the end, then, I reckon Americans just don't see what the hubbub is all about – 'if you don't like it, piss off' might be the way to describe their take of how they're perceived. Maybe this is a remnant of the pre-Pearl Harbour isolationist USA. Or maybe it's something else I just can't figure out. And don't me wrong. I ain't “Anti-American” or whatever. This post shouldn't be taken that way. I know lots of Americans. And I'm friends with plenty of 'em. I've kinda rambled here, but I'll say that's okay; it's an American kinda thing to do I guess. If you don't like it, sue me. Or, better yet, fuck off. (Which, I guess, kinda an American thing to say.) I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. I fear that wasn't as clear as it needed to be. It's just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

Captain Planet was a Wanker: Part 2 in a 2-Part Series on "Living Green"

Part 2: The Corporations Vs. The Earth

“Corporate social responsibility is not a fad.” (Angel Cabrera)

Second, as far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with non- “eco-friendly” businesses. That is, businesses shouldn't be expected to consider the welfare of the environment when it comes to how they conduct their affairs.

Sure, some businesses are genuinely concerned about the environment; it's part of their corporate personality. These firms are willing to take steps, often at the cost of less profit, to treat the environment better. And this is okay, so long as that's the way the shareholders (i.e. owners) want the business to be run.

But there are also businesses that just don't give a fuck about the environment. They, more than anything, just care about profit. It's not that they're interested in destroying the environment it's just that they've got their priorities straight – earning cash. I think this is your typical business. And that, too, is okay.

These businesses – whose owners don't think the business should consider the welfare of the environment – aren't doing anything wrong. Businesses or, rather, those who chiefly run businesses (let's call them managers) have one obligation: to do that which the owners want. Typically that involves maximizing profits while conforming to the rules of law. End of story. After all, that's what businesses are – they're a mechanism to derive a profit by offering a service.

We can say that the managers, as individual moral persons, have obligations to whatever (possibly, let's say, the environment). While this is true, it'd be immoral for a manager to run her employing firm such that it serves as a means for her to meet any obligations she has to the environment (or whatever). Managers are, plainly, paid to run the business however the owners want it run; to do it otherwise would be immoral insofar as it'd be immoral to waste company or shareholder money on stuff they don't want. It's, essentially, equivalent to stealing. If a manager is concerned with the welfare of the environment, cool. But that's wholly separate from her role as manager. She can spend her free time and her own money however she sees fit; it's an abuse of power for her to make the business something other than what the owners want.

Okay so can we say that the owners, who have the ability to direct the managers on how to run the business, have an obligation to see it run in a specific (e.g. “green”) way? Well, no. Firstly for them to have such obligations the owners would need to have some sort of obligation (e.g. to the environment)... and I'm not convenience that they have such an obligation. But, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm willing to throw the good for nuthin' hippies a bone – let's assume that the owners do have an obligation to the environment. Still, this is a personal obligation of each individual, not one of their business. They have the prerogative to meet any such obligations however they deem fit. But they aren't morally required to do it through their business. Again, the purposes of their business is to derive a profit (by offering a service). Just because the individuals who own and run a business have some peripheral obligation doesn't mean that that business needs to be run in a certain way; a way that's a perversion of the role businesses are meant to play.

So, then, why are there "eco-friendly" businesses out there? This is, really, a side issues that's different than what I wanted to talk about... so I'll only say that there could be any number of explanations (none of which denote a moral obligation of the right kind): The owners might not realize that their perverting the purpose of a business by making it "eco-friendly"; Or, they could consider it the best way to capitalize on a niche market (what better way to milk the dollars outta those dirty hippy hands); Or, maybe, they're just stupid hippies themselves trying (unsuccessfully) to play the capitalist game.

Businesses aren't wrong for not acting to benefit the environment. That's not their role and it's not the responsibility of a business to ensure the environment is cared for. If the people, at large, want businesses to be "eco-friendly", they have the ability to make it happen: through their power as consumers and/or through government regulation on business practices.

At the end of the day, it's cool if businesses are "eco-friendly", but it has to be for the right reasons -- which are limited to the rules of law, the consumer demands, and the desires of the owners. Barring that it'd be immoral for the employees to make it a "green" company. The sole focus of those who run any business is to do their part in making the company earn a profit while acting in accordance with the rules of law and any other restrictions stipulated by the owners (which may or may not include environmental considerations). That is, in short, why those lamewad green-thumbs shouldn't expect businesses to be "eco-friendly". I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. I fear that wasn't as clear as it needed to be. It's just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

Captain Planet was a Wanker: Part 1 in a 2-Part Series on "Living Green"

Part 1: Me and My Planet

“I can remember when the air was clean and sex was dirty” (George F. Burns)

There's a lot of buzz these days about “sustainability” and being “eco friendly”. More than anything else, this is a trend. Sure, some people have been concerned about the planet for quite a while, but it's only been in the past few years that this has been popularized into a “green” movement. And while it's a trend that has, arguably, good effects I've got 2 reservations:

First, as far as I can tell, I ain't motivated to live a “sustainable” life.

I say this because I'm not sure going out of my way to make sure the world will be able to provide for humans longer than I'll be alive is in my best interest or, even, something I should care about altruistically. I mean, so long as the planet doesn't die before I do, everything's cool (for me). That is, I'm motivated to ensure that the world is capable of giving us (me included) what we need for however long I'm likely to live. After that, though, I don't think I care. And why should I? After that point I'll be dead and the condition of the world won't matter to me. (How could it – I can't care about anything if I'm dead... right??)

However – and this is important – if people I care about are going to live longer than I, then I should care about the longevity of the Earth. And if I should care about the longevity of the Earth, then I ought to act now in a way to ensure that those people that I care about will have a clean 'n' pretty lil' planet to live on.

Now be sure to recognize the antecedent of that first conditional statement: it focus on people I care about; not imaginary (i.e. non-existent) people and not people I don't know. Until there are people who I care about that are going to live longer than I, making sure the environment will last isn't a priority. While I care about lots of people – for instance friends and family – they are pretty much all of my generation or an older one; I don't got any kids and I ain't friends with anyone else's. And were all gonna die around the same time.

Those damn dirty idealists out there might have 3 objections here: That I should care about the planet because: (a) There might someday be people (e.g. kids) who I'll care about that'll need a healthy planet; (b) There are people outside my generation alive now that will need a healthy planet; and, (c) The planet is something we should just care about for it's own welfare. These are all stupid. Let's look at each of them in turn.

So what about the kids I might have some day? (Cries out the tree-huggin' hippy.) Nope, they don't count. I say this because it's non-sensical to talk about having obligations to people who don't exist or who you don't presently care about. To have obligations to someone you need to stand in the right kind of relation to them. And of all the possible right kinds of relations, I think, they all necessarily involve the target person(s) being tangible; like how you can't tie a rope to you and your pretend kid, you can't have obligations towards a pretend kid. So even if I intend to have kids someday, and I want my kids to have the best life possible, until they are actual moral patients I'm not motivated to change my actions to actions that will benefit them. Just because I suspect that there will be people I care about who will survive me, that's not reason enough to care about the environment today.

And sure, there are other people in my community or society who will out live me with a significant enough margin such that me living a green life would probably make a difference for their lives (and the lives of those they care about). But it just isn't the case that I have a default level of care or obligation to them that makes me obligated to live green just because we share a community or society or or earth or whatever. To require me to make a lifestyle change of that significance requires a much stronger kind of relationship.

I'll note that this does hinges on 1 other important claim: that the earth isn't itself a moral patient. While some hemp wearing jerkwad might wanna disagree with me on that, I think it's pretty obviously true. At the end of the day the environment is just a collection of non-sentient lifeforms. And that's not enough to qualify as a moral patient. It's no more than an instrument we use to survive. It seems that people get confused on that because we need to share it with everyone else. But those we share it with are the ones we might have obligations to; not the instrument itself. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

Long Live Liz?

Her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth the Second is a decrepit, ineffectual welfare bludger whose very existence makes a farce out of the egalitarian, democratic and meritocratic ideals that underpin our otherwise vibrant, modern democracy. She is a gross throwback to a time when rampant inequalities and desperate stinking poverty was not just tolerated, but part of the natural, divine order of things. When she eventually shuffles off this mortal coil, liberating the British Taxpayer from the burden of providing a pitiful crone and her inbred, talentless family the ostentious baubles of undeserved office, she will leave behind a legacy mired in conservative mediocrity - the only redemptive feature being that her and her family's inept ability to understand the British public has made the long-term viability of this loathsome Crown virtually untenable. But, for now, the British people continue to undermine their committment to freedom, and here in New Zealand, the face I see on my $20 dollar note is a wretched symbol of colonial oppression sitting on a gaudy throne thousands of miles away. A face who couldn't be bothered showing up to the funeral of the man whose face I see on my $5 dollar note, a true New Zealand hero forced to blot an impeccable lifetime of greatness by swearing fealty, and becoming a Knight, or servant, to a woman not fit to have cleaned his bathroom.

Strong words, and you are encouraged, of course, to disagree as to whether they are deserved. (Maybe even write a comment, or tick the 'sadface' box!) I'm pretty sure if my Nana knew how to use the internet, such a vitrolic opening paragraph would be fast and efficient way to be written out of her will. But today is, after all, a public holiday and a day off work - to celebrate the Anniversary of the Birth of the Reigning Sovereign. (although, its not even her real birthday - it is yet another of the privileges of winning the JACKPOT in the lottery of birth that you get to have TWO birthdays.). On today of all days, strong words - and a strong debate on the constitutional future of New Zealand, dole bludger or sans dole bludger - must be encouraged. A New Zealand republic is one of those issues that rears its hopeful head every few years, blunders about in the form of a poorly worded Garth George article on the issue, before being gently put back to sleep by the twin forces of political apathy and timid politicians. But it is a debate that we, the people, of New Zealand deserve. Because its very easy to write an opening paragraph ripping into Her Majesty for being undemocratic and useless. It's a lot harder to answer the question 'What would we replace her with?' without a more reasoned political discourse. It's why, in the absence of this discourse, I feel compelled - despite the fact it makes me feel ill (you could almost say I have a weak constitution, lulz!) - to support the continuation of the monarchy.

Why? Because I've thought about the Queen a lot lately. Far longer than any red-blooded, testosterone-fuelled 21 year old male should be thinking about any blue-blooded, caviar-fuelled 83-year old women. And having her as the head of state in New Zealand, represented by a Governor-General appointed by the Prime Minister, is just SO easy. The Governor-General, constrained by the fact he isn't elected, will sign any bill created by our elected MP's into law. Most of the time, we get on just fine with that. However, should Parliament turn into a complete constitutional clusterfuck (much like Canada's did earlier this year, if anyone read our joint post on that), the Governor-General can act as a constitutional backstop, can suspend/dissolve parliament, declare the opposition leader the PM if they have the support of the House and/or call an election. Sweeeet. (And if the Governor-General goes batshit insane, the PM can ask the Queen very nicely to remove the GG from office. Like a constitutional fine-leg, if I can be indulged the use of a cricketing term)

What would happen if we ditched her, and replaced her with something a lot more democratically palatable, but a lot more constitutionally difficult? I can think of three options, and all suck.

1. The Prime Minister is also the Head of State. - Sweet Jesusfuck, this would be a nightmare. In our constitutional system, where we have hardly any constraints on what the legislature comes up with (courts can't overrule it etc.), taking away the only person who is capable of stopping 'Slippery Johnny and the Budget Slashers' from passing a law which kills all blue eyed babies, or abolishes elections is patently absurd, and dangerous.

2. We elect a new head of state, who has the same powers the old Governor-General used to have - Aside from the hilarious situation suggested by a friend that Lyn of Tawa would compete against Sean Fitzpatrick for the nominal position of 'embodiment of everything New Zealand stands for', this seems like the most democratic way forward. After all, a Head of State is supposed to be someone that the citizens of the state are proud to have as thier head, right? The only problem is that, as I've pointed out, the Governor-General is a pretty important part of our constitution, who might just have to (as happened in Canada), decide on some preeeetty major issues - like,whether or not to sack an elected Prime Minister. The last four New Zealand GG's have all been respected judges - perhaps reflecting this need. While Sean Fitzpatrick might be the best New Zealander to cut ribbons, open Parliament and do all the mundane boring crap a GG does - I'm not sure if I'm happy with him making decisions in a constitutional crisis that have the potential to ruin the country. As a secondary point, there would be a great temptation for an elected President, backed by the 'will of the people', to overstep their authority and offer comment on all kinds of issues or even be more willing to interfere with parliamentary sovereignty (maybe refuse to sign a bill they do not like into law.)

3. The PM appoints a new 'President' who is then approved by Parliament - This takes care of the constitutional problems, BUT it feels a lot like the old unelected GG. It would be immensely politically unpopular - giving unpopular politicians the chance to pick the highest representative of New Zealand. Also, under this model we are denied the ability to have the Queen (or more likely, a trusted advisor) step in, should the GG go totally nuts and dissolve Parliament on a whim.

One last reason. Perhaps it is immature to design a new, monarch-free republic of New Zealand while lingering claims with Maori remain. Not only because a new constitutional structure would need to fully address the self-determination and cultural rights of Maori, but it seems desperately unfair to rob Maori of their right to seek grievances against the Crown, the representation of colonial oppression.

So, I have reached a conclusion I find deeply depressing, supporting the Queen because she's the least bad of a range of terrible options. Perhaps a reader can shed light on another possible option for a new Head of State in New Zealand, or even tell me why one of my suggested failmodels is in fact a constitutionalwin. Until then, the Queen might be a haggard symbol of inequality and imperialism, but she's easy.

What 1995 film stars Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman?

“A private sin is not so prejudicial in this world as a public indecency." (Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra)

The seven deadly sins denote seven characteristics that people can have; specifically, bad characteristics. Sucks to be you, if you're so horrible as to have all of 'em. Everyone probably likes to think that they don't have any of them. People, instead, like to think they embody the seven heavenly virtues (i.e. purity, temperance, generosity, diligence, patience, kindness, and humility). But, if you've ever been – or presently are – a student, you're probably wrong. (Really, even if you've never been a student you're probably also wrong. But that's a separate issue... If you've never been a student you just a lost cause.)

I can say that if you've ever been a student you're probably a sinner because, it seems to me, each of the seven deadly sins is summed up by a type of student. Some students (e.g. full-time Arts majors) are innocent and heaven bound. Here I'll try to explain why much of the rest are hell bound.

Gluttony
Gluttony is the sin of postgrad students. They just can't get enough. After they finish one degree they can't help but come back for more. Instead of taking their meager education and contributing to society as best they can, they decide to do frivolous “research” into too often moot topics (which, more often than not, end up being espoused in a never-to-be-read arrogant and elitist thesis). I mean, come on, you've had your fill, now get to work and pay off that fucking student loan.

Greed
Business is the most obvious, and appropriate, candidate here. So appropriate that the buildings in which this so-called faculty is housed are aptly called “temples of greed”. Nothing more represents the downfall of modern society that the degradation of proper academia than the admittance of this trade school into the university community. I mean, really, business/commerce/management/whatever-the-fuck-you-wanna-call-it isn't representative of higher learning or indicative of the pursuit and love of knowledge. Instead it's reflective of the self-interested desire to gain wealth at the expense of others and the world around you. While these beacons of capitalism have done one good thing – defeat communism – they still fall far short of redemption.

Lust
Our local whores come in one pure form at uni: Nursing students. Forever have they taunted us with their sexualized outfits, pursuit of cleanliness, and detailed knowledge of our anatomy. But even though these potential perks enable these students to better society by making us happier, they're all just a bunch of cock teases: Would I like a sponge bath please? Yes. Has a nurse ever bathed me? No. What's even worse is how they try to bullshit about how this objectification is a bad thing; But who's the first to come to the Halloween party dressed as a slutty nurse? A nursing student.

Envy
Engineers are the wannabes of the university community; more often than not to their own detriment. Sure, engineering has been part of proper universities for ages. But they, unfortunately, try to make themselves out to be a “professional degree”. (As if that's something desirable in and of itself.... But that's a whole other bag of worms.) It's like, come off it already. You're not law and you're not medicine. And you're never gonna get there. At the end of the day an electrical engineer is little more than a glorified computer science graduate. At least the latter accepts the fact that she's a life long loser.

Pride
While Medicine has the potential to aid society and it's people in a meaningful and worthwhile way, it's students are no better off then engineers. Pride is their folly. The elitist self-worth of those who strive to be doctors is palpable. Despite the hallow victories of having fought through a competitive field of study, they aren't any better than anyone else. Sure, they might know how to fix you when your broken; but my mechanic knows how to fix my car when it's fucked, and ain't about to call her doctor. “Baby docs” (read: med students) might just be overcompensating for their lack of a social life, but that's just conjecture on my part.

Wraith
Hell hath no fury like a lawyer scorned. The best way to win a battle and get what you want is to have a better understanding of they rulebook than your adversary. And, like it or not, the law is our societal rulebook. And, like it or not, lawyers know the law better than most. So if you piss off a lawyer, she will fuck your shit up... proper. It doesn't help matters that lawyers (starting when law students) are angry lil folk. But it is understandable: all they deal with is people at their worst. But you signed up for it, Mr. Lawyer-man, so you got no excuse.

Sloth
Last, but certainly not least, we've got the lazy ones: part-time students. Get real already guys. Taking 6 years to do 1 lousy undergrad degree is reprehensible. Can you handle a full course load like the rest of us? No, then go work as a janitor (the world always needs more janitors). Ya know what if they're too lazy to be full-time students, it's not worthwhile for me to spend any more time talking about 'em.


I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

A Dopey Campaign.

Society is littered with rules that are unprincipled, counter-productive and dumb - and the continued criminalisation of marijuana is one of them. Firstly, it seems a glaring and vapid inconsistency within our legal system that we deem it fit for the government to take away our right to choose what to do with our own bodies here (cos weed is heapz bad 4 u), but yet seems to have no problem with 18 year olds skulling back bottles of absinthe, losing all their money by betting on the All Blacks to win the Rugby World Cup, before selling themselves on the street for sex so they can continue to pay for their lung cancer treatment caused by a 5-pack a day cigarette addiction. And even you're someone who believes choices rot your brain (Paul D?) , and think that the answer is not give people any choice over things that are objectively bad for them (and so the government should also ban smokes, absinthe and the All Blacks), surely you must concede that people are going to find ways to do this 'bad stuff' anyway (often because it's addictive), and therefore legalisation becomes the best way to deal with the inevitable harms. Once something is legalised, the government can concede it exists, it can start to regulate it. The government ,unlike your current local supplier, has no interest in getting you addicted. It can ensure that when marijuana is legitimately sold, it can be taxed at a level which takes into account the negative externalities (social costs for non-economics kids) caused by dope. This will hopefully discourage first time pot smokers from trying the stuff, but at the very least will allow the government a pool of resources to deal with the inevitable bad stuff from marijuana use - like the self-induced brain damage or the general damage an addiction causes to finances and familial relationships. The legalisation of marijuana would be smart, responsible politics - conceding a problem exists, and determining that the best way to deal with it is not jail time for addicts (allowing them to hook up with more suppliers), but more funding to rehabilitation centres.

On the back of that rather marathon first paragraph, it should be noted that society is also littered with behaviours that are counter-productive and dumb - and the smoking of marijuana is again high up on this list. For all the protestations that 'it's fun' and 'it's not even as bad as drinking alcohol lol', its still got a truckload of harmful long-term effects, which I can't be assed going into here, because you should have taught them by a nice, well-meaning social worker while in high school. Legalisation of marijuana isn't the 'good' option, or even the 'morally principled' option. It's just the 'least bad' option for dealing with a bad, socially harmful thing that is a bane to society.

There are three types of people in society. There are those who don't smoke pot, who (rightly) think pot is bad and (wrongly) see it as being immoral, and who see the legalisation of pot as the first step on the road to Mad Max-ian anarchy. Then there are those who do smoke pot, cant see what all the fuss is about and wish the government would stop declaring them criminals for putting something in their bodies that may cause harm to them, but causes no harm to others. Then is a tiny minority of people like me, who don't smoke pot (on the grounds that my diet of pie sandwiches and cheap wine already has me hurtling towards an early grave without any additional help, thank you very much), but who think it should be legalised on the grounds of personal choice and/or 'its the best way to deal with the problem'. The problem is that while the first type of person is armed with a whole bunch of arguments that are rubbish and irrational (FACT: At a town hall meeting I attended in Mangawhai once, an old lady stood up and said 'We can't legalise this drug, there will be more young people growing dreadlocks!), which stems from never having really thought the issue through...the first group of people significantly outnumber the second and third groups. So how do we make them see the light?

And thats why this post isn't really about the legalisation of marijuana at all. Rather its a bitter rant against the NORML campaign currently being run by pro-legalisation advocates. This campaign (at least as it appears to an ignorant member of the public) seems to be little more than organising events in seedy public parks for large numbers of stoners to actively flout the current law and get stoned in large numbers. It's baffling, and a testament to the wear-and-tear continued marijuana usage has on the mental faculties, that the organisers think it will win over the hearts and minds of the Reefer Grinches. All these 'J Day protests' (as they have been coined) acheive is to alert the anti-marijuana lobby to their 2 biggest fears that arise from legalisation - that it normalises and makes 'fun' a substance with harmful effects, and that its 'normalisation' in society will get more people addicted. The argument that 'Marijuana usage is fun' will not end the Drug Wars. An acknowledgement that marijuana is bad, but legalisation is the best way to deal with the harms. just might. The NORML campaign must really hammer the inefficiency and inadequacy of 'prohibition', while playing up the fact that legalisation does not, and should not equate to social acceptance.

This may go some way to defeating the strongest argument that can be mustered by the anti-pot lobby - that more people will become addicted. Firstly, if marijuana usage retains some sort of 'taboo' status, people will be less likely to take it up. Secondly, smart, effective regulation allows for those who are addicted to have better access to care, and also makes it harder for the industry's current heavy hitters, which relies on a business model of pushing the drug onto as many new and naive users as possible.

It's sad that the people most committed to marijuana reform are the people who are doing the most to damage its political acceptance. But that doesn't have to be the case. Once stoners acknowledge the harms of their product of choice, the case against marijuana becomes about as pathetic and pointless as Dragonball:Evolution. After all, a model of 'criminal ban - no questions asked' has been a policy disaster, both on the taxpayer who must bear the brunt of the 'war on people putting they stuff they want to put into their own bodies' and the addicts themselves. I think NORML are conducting their campaign in a boneheaded way that will ultimately fail, but overall - they sit on the right side of the argument. Its time for a change.

Alex

NOTE: Had I have been braver, I would have written this post about the legalisation of ALL drugs, not just marijauna. But I'm not entirely convinced on this - with some drugs (say P), the fact that you are more likely to lose control and cause harm to others after taking the drug seems a convincing enough reason for their continued criminalisation. But I'm really not sure, and theres convincing stuff that says that acknowledging the problem through legalisation is still a better means of harm reduction than criminalisation. Check out this article on Portugal, which has a legalise all drugs policy. My mate Will has also considered this issue on his blog. If anyone wants to argue for the legalisation of ALL drugs, I'd be happy to hear/read it.

AGuestOnFailure: How they would move -- Footnotes on the Masterworks of Ludwig Wittgenstein

Imagine that Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus was a person.
He was a young man – driven, entrepreneurial and shaved clean. He woke up early in the morning without setting an alarm clock. He ate quickly, dressed quickly and opened his front door onto the hustle and bustle of a busy sidewalk.
The Tractatus was a young man who always arrived at work on time. Many of his colleagues appreciated his punctuality and always made a point of saying positive things about him. Some tried to imitate his behavior. But those who only witnessed his arrival missed something important. Those who watched the Tractatus on his journey had a better understanding of his character.
When The sidewalk was empty The Tractatus would glide over the pavement with long, elegant strides, covering much distance in little time. When the sidewalk became congested with doddlers and window shoppers his strides would shorten. They became faster and impossibly precise. He wove in and out of the crowd rhythmically; side stepping a leashed dog to the left, lifting his briefcase over the head of an old woman to the right. To some, the Tractatus was not walking at all; rather he was dancing through pedestrians to strange rhythms and beats that only he could hear.
If he was forced to endure the nuisance of waiting at a crosswalk he would observe his environment and try to bring order to his surroundings by naming its constituent parts. He saw a flock of birds in the sky: Branta canadensism, he said to himself. He saw a plucky weed bursting through a crack in the pavement: Taraxacum officinale.
When the light changed and it was his turn to walk he strode confidently into the street, leaving a group of awe-struck pedestrians in his wake.

Imagine that Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations was a person.
He was an old man with a bent back and a house that smelled vaguely of mildew. His house was cluttered with things he found interesting – African wood carvings, out-of-circulation currency, antique golf clubs, etc.
He always woke up slowly and stretched his tired body before going for a walk. Philosophical Investigations left his house with no specific purpose except to continue the endless task of exploring the back alleys and nooks of his city. He tried to avoid the main streets. After all, the treasures he sought were usually in the hidden shops, the types of places where old Chinese men sold mysterious curios from forgotten times.
He wandered through narrow paths, taking his time and investigating everything thoroughly. Even still it was not unusual for him to backtrack, convinced he missed something important. It never bothered him to return to places he'd been before. In fact he was always secretly excited to end up at a place that he had already been, but to have arrived there from a different direction.
He never failed to find things of interest on his walks. It was not unusual to find him looking at brick work at a crumbling building, or reading a declaration of love that had been etched into a bench with a jack-knife. He carried a magnifying glass in his coat pocket. Sometimes when he got tired he would stop at a pond to feed the Branta canadensis. Philosophical Investigations did not know that Branta canadensis was the Latin term for the birds he was feeding (he called them “Honkers”), but he had keenly observed how they were; how they existed in the world. He knew that each bird found just one partner and stayed with that partner until separation by death. He liked that. Once his strength returned, he continued on his way, shuffling towards his next discovery.

It was inevitable that the young Tractatus and the old Philosophical Investigations would cross paths. All the walkers in the city eventually bumped into one another. They approached each other on the sidewalk and between them lay a patch of glimmering ice. Philosophical Investigations recognized this as a hazard and stepped onto the dirty ground beside the pavement in order to avoid the ice.
The Tractatus thought he saw something else in the patch of ice. To the Tractatus the ice looked beautiful – perfect. Its had a smoothness and a grace that was intoxicating to the young man. He wad finally found a surface to match his style. He strode onto the ice and all his elegance could not save him. He fell and slid to the feet of the old man, who watched the whole ordeal with amusement. Philosophical Investigations extended his arm to the young man who took it. They smiled at each other. Between them was a sense that despite traveling in opposite directions, and appearing to have little in common, there was a deeper bond, an unstated understanding between them.
“Son, you can't walk on ice. You need friction, you need rough ground,” the old man said.
“Sorry, no time to chat,” the young man said. “I've got places to be.”
The Tractatus took off, walking even faster than he had been before (presumably to make up for lost time). Philosophical Investigations chuckled to himself, and then bent down to investigate a dandelion.

Peter Jickling
July 16, 2008

As (once) demanded - A word on Kittens and Sandwiches.

Gah, I had abandoned this blog for a while. A combination of uni life and trying to join the workforce meant there was no time for the internet to recieve the sad, poorly reasoned opinions of a sad, reasonably poor man. And now I have to take part in Paul's muppetsurvey09 and give my opinions on kittens and sandwiches, 2 wholly unrelated things, neither of which I care about. I hate the democratic process. Oh well, here lieth a perfunctory post on Kitten Sandwiches, and I should be back to my normal blogging shortly....

I've posted before on kittens. Or more to the point, why I like kittens and will not eat them, but why I will still be your friend if you decided to eat one. Or, for that fact, if you decide to eat a whale. But I think I would struggle to remain your friend if you decided to get a puppy. Puppies are stupid. They eat shoes, knock over valuable household objects, demand that you take time out of your day to take them for walks, and they are unable to control their bowels. Worse, they grow up into dogs, which are just like puppies only they are not even slightly cute, and may without warning maul the mailman. Or your small cousin. I like dogs in the limited capacity of 'working dogs' - they are an acceptable, if unreliable tool to enhance human labour in the fields of agriculture, security or blind people. But not as pets. They are terrible pets. The only people who keep dogs as pets are control freaks who yearn to return to the days when their children were helpless and needed them to cater to their every whim, or patched gang members. Cats, the grown-up version of kittens, are much better pets - almost entirely self-reliant, and just checking up on you every now and then for a friendly scratch, or to keep you warm by sleeping at the foot of your bed at night. People who own cats are smart, urban,professionals - busy people who want a low-maintenance but comforting pet.

I'm not going to de-friend you on Facebook if I found out you own a dog, but I would think less of you, and say mean things about you behind your back. Owning a dog is, in my opinion, an epic fail character flaw. And you would think I was a jerk, and acting completely unfairly. BUT, if I went one step further - and refused to hire you as an employee at my textile factory because I didn't like the fact you owned a dog, then you would claim I was being unfairly discriminatory. After all, owning a dog bears no relevance to your ability to sew, and be a good maker of textiles, does it?

Now, lets suppose I like sandwiches - which I do. Lets say, hypothetically, after a trip to the the sunny shores of Gisborne, I developed a liking for 'Pie Sandwiches' - a mince and cheese pie between two slices of bread. You may think this weird, a risk to my arteries, evidence of a broken man's retreat into depravity, whatever. I would understand. In fact I realise that my esteemed co-blogger, Paul D, a man who has blogged ad nausem on the issue of fine dining as evidence of a higher being, think pie sandwiches are epic fail. I appreciate this policy difference, and am pleased our friendship has prospered regardless. I am also pleased that Paul D did not refuse to start this co-blog with me, on account of my partiality to pie sandwiches. After all, what foods I find delicious has no bearing on my ability to write concise, witty posts on popular and current issues.

Whats the point of all this? Well, obviously theres a range of things in modern society that require us to choose the best person based on a range of objective criteria - say for instance, a job. And all people would freely agree that some criteria are really relevant for people looking to apply for a job - like your skill level at that particular job, your ability to be available at the required times, your work ethic, whether or not you are punctual etc. And there are some things that you cannot BY LAW, and by any conception of popular morality, take into consideration when deciding who to employ - like race, gender, sexuality, political orientation, age etc. Then there are things that everyone would consider to be ridiculous things to add to a criteria - such as what pets you own, or how you choose to eat your pies.

But theres a fourth category of things. Things that have no bearing on a persons ability to do a job, but which get taken into consideration as relevant, because its socially normal to find them yucky. This post isn't about kitten sandwiches, its about smoking. I think smoking is gross. But it is legal. And whether or not you smoke has no bearing on your ability to drive a forklift, or your knowledge of tax law, or your ability to be President of the United States. And yet, we would find it perfectly acceptable if someone was denied a job because they smoked. We would some way, say it was indicative of a seedy and unsavoury aspect of someone's character, and that it was perfectly justified to not want to hire them. But its wrong.

Our generation likes to think that we are less bigoted than our parents. That's wrong. We are bigoted, just about different things. Just as our grandparents generation thought it ok to discriminate on the basis of race, and our parents on the basis of sexuality, we consider it ok to discriminate on the basis of people making choices we don't like. That's wrong.

I hope I made some kind of point here. I'm not sure if I have, beyond proving that these poll thingy's are ridiculous. I've managed to wank on for about a thousand words on this stupid topic. And given that a picture says a thousand words...maybe I shall leave you with one that, I think sums up my views on kittens and sandwiches quite nicely, thank you very much.
He still smokes. Lol.


Alex

Killing in the Name... of Money

“The best soldiers are not warlike” (Chinese Proverb)

Mercenaries have been around, in one form or another, for ages.

But getting at what, exactly, a mercenary is and how it's different than your typical legitimate soldier turns out to be tricky. Our intuitions might drive you to say that a mercenary is anyone who wages or participates in war primarily for the remuneration she'll receive for that service. But that definition won't work. It won't work because we can think of someone we'd want to call a mercenary who factors in ideologies when deciding who to work for (for instance, no matter how much you might get paid, you might not be willing to work as a mercenary for someone fighting your own country). And, it could also be the case that someone working as a traditional soldier in a legitimate army is only doing so because of the pay; after all, military service is very often boasted as a career opportunity. So the idea of what a mercenary is can't be based on being paid for military services.

So I'm not sure we can get a completely clear and unproblematic conception of what a mercenary is. Nevertheless I think we can work with the idea that a mercenary is someone who looks out for herself, or her interests, while working outside the legitimate traditional institutions of soldiering (even if that involves working for a legitimate traditional institution of soldiering). I realize there's vagueness in that, but I think it's – coupled with the intuitions backing up the initial attempted definition in the preceding paragraph – clear enough to work with for now.

While you might think that mercenaries are only common is poor lil undeveloped countries, war-torn regions, or your mom's bedroom, they're really all over. Recently, and by that I mean in the last few decades, a new form of mercenarism has develop: the private military industry. These kinds of mercenaries are everywhere, but they're typically based in wealthy developed nations. This industry isn't the same as the military industrial complex (which is the business of making arms for the military). Rather, the private military industry is the business of providing “security services"; The private military industry is the business sector comprised of firms whose primary purpose is to offer services (in one form or another) of the variety of what legitimate state militaries traditionally (or theoretically could) provide. So this includes everything from highly trained combat personnel to logistical support. At the end of the day these firms are the modern variant of mercenarism; they offer the same kinds of services offered by “traditional” mercenaries, but they do so via a contemporary international business model; they are corporatized mercenaries. However, while you distill it, this difference doesn't amount to much of a difference at all: we can't meaningfully (or, at least, morally) distinguish them from other kinds of mercenaries in virtue of the fact that those working for a private military industry firm collect themselves under a corporate banner.

Now, having said all that, what's the problem? I mean, sure, most people seem to have the intuition that there is something morally repugnant when it comes to mercenaries: that waging war through mercenaries is, in some way, the wrong way to wage in war; or that the reasons someone might be motivated to act as a mercenary are the wrong reasons to participate in war. But are our intuitions here right? Even if we assume some sort of Just War Theory doctrine, our intuitions about mercenaries still seem indefensible. For instance mercenarism can't be bad because mercenaries do it for the money since soldiers in the regular army could, just the same, do it for nothing but money (and we don't want to say they're on the same moral standing as mercenaries). Nor can we say that mercenarism is bad because mercenaries are necessarily looking out for themselves; a mercenary could be just as motivated by a legitimate cause as a freedom fighter or patriotic soldier. And the fact that they operate outside legitimate traditional institutions of soldiering seems irrelevant as well – we want to say that freedom fighters, civil war fighters, and the like aren't also necessarily immoral because they, like mercenaries, are outside legitimate traditional institutions of soldiering. So what's the unique problem with mercenaries?

Well, in the end I'm not sure there is one. But if there is one, it might be grounded in how we conceptualize mercenaries - that is, that which makes them unique from other kinds of partciapants in war might be the same grounds for why they're morally repugnant. So, if there is any case against mercenarism, that might be where we need to look (or at least start). In the end, though, I'm not sure how fruitful that would be. In the end, our intuitions here might just be wrong. It could be the case that, most often, mercenaries are motivated by the wrong reasons. Yet that's not enough to say mercenarism is necessarily immoral and never okay. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

An Ode to the World's Greatest Man

“Writing takes time and thought that blogging doesn't allow.” (P.J. O'Rourke)

Today I'm not going to argue in favor of something ridiculous; nor am I gonna point out another thing hippies are doing wrong. Instead I'm going to preach the gospel and praise the greatest man who ever lived. No, I ain't talking about Jesus... I'm talkin' about P.J. O'Rourke.

P.J.'s an interesting guy: when he was in uni he was probably just about as far to the left as someone could be – he was a Maoist. But, over the years, he swung like a pendulum to the far right. What I think is important here is that he remained a cool and interesting guy all along. As he once called himself, he's a “republican party reptile” - someone who, while a staunch conservative, still loves the finer things in life: vices and an absence of stupid people.

The fact that P.J. is, essentially, a senior citizen these days is irrelevant... I'm not going to claim that he's writing is interesting cuz he “lived an interesting life yo”. There's a lot of people who've had interesting lives and written books about 'em. So I think it'd be uninteresting were my reasons for why you should read some P.J. so lame. But even though he has lived an interesting life his writing is interesting because he's such a good writer. I mean, sure, he's written articles detailing the phenomenology of taking ecstasy; what's like to be given a Ferrari and told to drive it from New York to Los Angeles with your boss in the seat beside you; and "How to Drive Fast on Drugs While Getting Your Wing-Wang Squeezed and Not Spill Your Drink". Even if you aren't motivated to experiment with drugs or speed from coast to coast, he write in such a way that it makes you interested - he's able to make it funny while highlighting the parts you secretly want to ask about.

It's important, though, to emphasis an division in his writings; between: his “gonzo journalism”, and important/abstract type things. The important/abstract type stuff he's written about includes the U.S. System of government, economics, war, and the world of business. These, I think, are all important topics and everyone should get some familiarity with them. And P.J. - in virtue of his cleaver writing prose - is, I think, able to make otherwise dry and dreary topics fascinating and fun for the whole family. Here you'll find him, characteristically, addressing serious issues in his trademark comical style; after all he is a satirist (for those undergraduate students out there, think the style of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert). His range as a write can be highlighted by pointing out that he's written a book explaining Adam Smith's convoluted The Wealth of Nations, and had articles (which I, personally, find to be better than his books) published in everything from Playboy to Rolling Stone.

While I think P.J. is just your everyman (that is, the non-idiot cool uncle - who drank too much and did cool shit - you looked up to as an adolescent). I could be wrong. Really, while I've tried to paint an accurate picture of my hero and why your life would be notably better were you to read some of his shit, I'm not sure if I've managed to pull that off. Sadly, I've never met P.J. and I probably never will. Nor will he ever read and give me feedback in a witty lil comment since he's against blogging. (In fact, he doesn't even have a computer; he still sticks with his good ol' typewriter... which I guess just gives him “character”.) So what's I've said here could be off the mark. Nevertheless, the only way you'll really be able to find out if my assesment of him and his work is right is to pick up one of his books. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

You wouldn't eat a Negro.

Given current market trends in New Zealand, I have a delicious product I am planning to promote and market through the hallowed pages of AWordOnFailure. This product will be a tasty confectionary treat, and I shall call it 'the Negro'. It will be shaped like a small thick-set man, and will be coloured entirely black, except for the lips - which shall be red. And thick. All of these delicious candy treats will come in only one flavour - WATERMELON. I have not yet decided on a slogan to market this entrepreneurial wet-dream of mine. At first I thought 'For a fun family time, you just can't beat a Negro' would be an assured success. But now I am more convinced by the merits of the slogan 'Become a slave to the taste!'. I am not entirely convinced by either, maybe I shall run a poll.

Obviously, I don't intend to do this - and I apologise profusely to anyone who may have been offended by the disgraceful racial slurs in the previous paragraph. It's interesting though, that once upon a time, it would have been socially acceptable to say that. Just as it was socially acceptable to sell this. Hell, I remember when a game of Eeny-Meeny-Miney-Mo, included the lyrics, 'Catch a nigger by the toe, if he squeals let him go...'. New Zealanders, in general, would probably like to think that in 2009, we are more enlightened than this. Well, we....aren't. In fact, there has lately been a huge public outcry over New Zealander's right to 'cherish' and 'treasure' an undeniably racist candy.

I'm referring, of course, to the Eskimo - a coloured and flavoured marshmellow bundle of deliciousness moulded into the shape of how candy-makers in the 1800's thought 'native wot lived in da cold' should look like. Read about it here, then read NZ's epic culturalrelations fail response here. In summary - Recently, an Inuit tourist to New Zealand, Seeka La VeeVee Parsons, raised the issue that the word Eskimo was no longer appropriate to describe her people, and - (it means 'eaters of raw meat') - and was now considered an offensive term in Canada and Greenland. Secondly, the shape of the candy, as a small little man in a snow suit with slitty eyes was an offensive depiction of her culture. Fair enough, I thought - while I've grown up with Eskimos and I find them delicious and had never really considered whether or not they were offensive, in hindsight, they are. Eskimos are my generation's 'golliwogs' - something that collective ignorance meant we never realised was offensive at the time , but in hindsight we will cringe that we ever found it acceptable. I thought that we should be thanking Ms. Parsons before we embarrassed our selves as a country further, and undermined our proud record on indigenous rights.

But if you take the response of the mainstream morons that have offered their comment on this issue on such auguste forums as stuff.co.nz - and more sadly, the manufacturers of the lollies themselves (Pascalls), one would imagine that Ms. Parsons urinated on the NZ flag, declared Phar Lap to be 'an Australian nag' before hitting Bronagh Key in the face with a signed picture of the crew of Alinghi. Ms Parsons has been told by the internet to 'grow up or go home' while Pascalls insists their will be no change to the design or name - and trusts that the New Zealand public will continue to enjoy Eskimos. Sigh. A number of arguments are offered in defence of the Eskimo. All suck.

The first is that 'the majority of people don't find Eskimos offensive'. True....because most people are not Inuit. A 'majority of people' have at one time or another supported slavery, a ban on homosexuality, no votes for women....the fact that a certain group of people find it offensive, and offer good, solid evidence as to why it is offensive to them should be enough to satisfy us.

The second argument is 'But we have been selling them for 64 years - it's a traditional part of the New Zealand culture!'. True, but I fail to see how this is an argument in support of the Eskimo. Just because an offensive thing has been around for ages - it doesn't follow from that that thing suddenly gains legitimacy and respect because of it's age. Take a ban on homosexuality. This was the norm for thousands of years, but that didn't make it right. It's hard for a society to admit the fact that we've been fucking up, and doing it wrong - but this doesn't mean we should keep acting in a way that is wrong or offensive, simply because its the way we have always done it, when there are no good arguments for the continuation of that practice.

Thirdly, the idea that 'We didn't know it was offensive, so that makes it ok.' I used golliwoggs earlier as an example of something that used to be socially acceptable, but now its frankly embarassing to admit that our parents had one as a toy when they were kids. (although Mr. Golly was my favourite character on Noddy, so maybe I shouldn't be so quick to call the kettle, er,black.) The fact that we, as a society, have no been made aware that Eskimos are considered offensive should mean that whatever we thought in the past is irrelevant. I mean, if I told you a 'Your Mom' joke, and you told me your mom was dead - well, I'd feel awful and I would apologise for bringing it up, but I meant no harm. But if I laughed and told another 'Your Mom' joke (cos dey heapz funni lol), well...I'd be a jerk.

Finally, there are people that concede that they are offensive, but defend Eskimos on the ground that they are delicious, which apparently transcends the shape, name,etc. These arguments are the worst. Being delicious, has never, is not, and will never be a defence to bigotry. I admit they are tasty, but I would get that delicious taste even if they were shaped as indescribable blobs. You could mould in the shape of Helen Clark's breasts and the taste would still be the same. In fact, they would be even tastier, as no Inuit would have been harmed in the enjoyment of my candy.

I'm advocating a ban on all Pascalls products until the Eskimo is pulled from the shelves of all supermarkets. But knowing the sad readership of my blog, that just means that I won't be eating lollies for long, long, long time. But some things are worth taking a stand on. The whole Western world is littered with outdated and offensive relics from an ignorant past, that present a demeaning charicature of indigenous peoples. Eskimos are just one example. Chief Wahoo, the Cleveland Indians mascot is another. And theres countless others here. If I was really principled, and really concerned - then I'd also have a problem with a certain provincial rugby team (located in a province that rhymes with Wankerbury) which is named after a series of bloody acts of agression, justified on the basis of religious intolerance, that resulted in the deaths of over 2 million innocent civilians, many in the Muslim world. But fuck it, that's a battle for my children's generation to fight.

Alex

my next post will be on kittens and sandwiches. promise.

As Demanded: AWordOn Children, Cricket, and Bukkake

“They've seen me make decisions, they've seen me under trying times, they've seen me weep, they've seen me laugh, they've seen me hug. And they know who I am, and I believe they're comfortable with the fact that they know I'm not going to shift principles or shift positions based upon polls” (G. W. Bush)

When Alex created this poll for me I didn't know what to think, or expect. But I certainly didn't think I'd be expected to write about kids, a “sport”, and a sexual act all in one post. *sigh*. So what do Children, Cricket, and Bukkake all have in common? Education! (lol) But, seriously, that's how I'm gonna tie them together. First, though, let's be clear about what we're talking about.

Children: Pretty straight forward. We all used to be (and maybe still are) kids. Kids are stupid, unruly, and trouble. Really, I'm against spawning. But people, sometimes by choice and sometimes by whoops-I-slipped-and-stuck-my-penis-in-your-vagina (i.e. “accident”), do it.

Cricket: A game (ahem, sorry, a “sport”) played by silly people who demand on stopping the event for a tea break. Cricket games, I've surmised, can go on for a few minutes (e.g. backyard cricket) or, like, almost a week (e.g. test matches). I've also noticed that this game is a strange slower version of baseball. And the refs wear funny hats. And wave their hands in funny motions. Oh, and they chuck the ball in some sort of a bizarre overhead motion where you keep your elbow locked. That's about the gist of it.

Bukkake: See here. (WARNING: for adults only! Underage folks, the faint of heart, and those wishing to protect their virgin eyes... let's just say bukkake is a activity involving consenting adults, where a few religious/morally upstanding members of the community gives daisies and donuts to another member of the community (consensually).

The rearing of children is of paramount importance. Without a proper upbringing kids might grow up to be socialist, Maoists, or, dare I say, hippies. (Gasp!) Enter education. Kids have to be taught stuff. That's the role of parents as well as the community. The contributions that can be offered by people other than parents can be divided into 2 discussion: appropriate content; and appropriate methodology. Let's start with the latter.

Clearly, I'm not going to be able to cover all the bases here, but I am capable of saying this: interactions of the sporting variety are an excellent way for kids to learn essential socialization skills. Even when playing a ridiculous game like cricket. Other sports will better promote physical fitness, but that's not the only important thing; which is why cricket has a role. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what they do so long as it's a structured interactive environment through which they are able to learn how to work as a part of a team and interact with others. Unfortunately what kids get out of playing cricket (and the like) is achieved indirectly; that's unfortunate because those potential gains are often missed by shortsighted people. And you get things like this happening.

Now what about appropriate content? What should kids be taught? Well even though Alex will probably accuse me of being a conservative, I'm not sure kids (or anyone) should be taught about bukkake. I mean, come on. Bukkake, more than anything, is a byproduct of the pornography industry's need to come up with new and “exciting” things. This happens because a key attraction of pornography is its taboo allure. While this creates a tug-of-war with pornography's ambition for social acceptance, it also means pornography has to push the limits - what's old hat or commonplace fails to stay taboo. So what happens is the eroticisation of everything by pornography: some thing, or act, is presented as that which should arouse. Through this we get strange things like bukkake, armpit sex, and (the infamous) 2girls1cup. [Again, virgins and people who want to stay innocent, avert your eyes!] What's the educational value in that? Well, probably nothing. BUT, a vibrant pornography industry also gives us alternate approaches to sex education. Here I don't mean the teaching of STI awareness or how to properly use a condom. Here I mean how to be good in the sack. For instance, thanks to the porn industry, we can all learn how to give great manual pleasure. (bootleg it here!). Which is more useful in a hands on (pun!) kind of way than the tired and antiquated Karma Sutra. While the appropriate age at which a child should learn how to be a good lover is a separate issue, a culture that stifles the consumption of pornography is going to make it harder for people to learn how to please their partners effectively – something I think we can all appreciate.

So while I've managed to write the filthiest AwordOnFailure post ever, I've managed to cover that which I needed to for the schizophrenic poll. At the end of the day, all I'm trying to say is that the education of our kids is important if we want them to grow up and be proper. This involves an open mind: not only when it comes to the means by which they learn, but also what they learn. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.