A Word On Failure

The Age of Innocence

2009-08-26T17:48:00.002+12:00

“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

2009-08-03T16:07:00.002+12:00

“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

2009-07-20T19:59:00.000+12:00

“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.

2009-06-30T21:43:00.002+12:00

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

2009-06-28T11:27:00.001+12:00

“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"

2009-06-14T20:48:00.003+12:00

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"

2009-06-08T01:39:00.004+12:00

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?

2009-05-31T23:09:00.003+12:00

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?

2009-05-25T00:50:00.001+12:00

“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.

2009-05-19T08:07:00.004+12:00

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

2009-05-15T21:19:00.001+12:00

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.

2009-05-12T21:52:00.003+12:00

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

2009-05-07T19:59:00.002+12:00

“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

2009-04-28T23:39:00.002+12:00

“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.

2009-04-24T09:21:00.004+12:00

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

2009-04-17T18:25:00.002+12:00

“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.

F*****D in the Middle: Why I hate 'Centrists'.

2009-04-13T23:48:00.006+12:00

I realise that the people (all 6 of them) have spoken, and demanded I write a post on kittens (again? epic imaginationfail reader(s)) and sandwiches. The people will get what they have demanded, but not just yet - I'm going to wait until Paul has shredded his blogging credibility attempting to discuss children, cricket AND bukkake at the same time. So, in the meantime, here is a continuation of my normal, deeply unpopular style - writing blog posts of epic length, on topics no one cares about, and,overusing,the, comma,,. Treatfest.

In our recent widely-publicized, poorly-read April Fools acid attack on each other I accused Paul of being boring, and he accused me of being wildly inconsistent (as well as boring). It's a charge that sticks, as Paul pointed out, I've got no problem with hating on the 'consenting' prositute while supporting the 'consenting' incestual relationship. In some of my posts, I sound like a liberal, tree-hugging Pollyanna-esque socialist, while in others I come across as the lovechild of Sarah Palin and Augusto Pinochet. To me, this doesn't seem like a problem - the political left and political right are both full of flaws. Any good society needs both left-wing and right-wing views, the right to give it a budget, and the left to give it a conscience. While this may be a pathetic attempt to justify my own inconsistency , a combination of left and right wing views isn't a fail, its evidence of someone who has thought each issue through clearly, and come to an issue-by-issue decision of which 'side' has the better argument. Just whatever you do, don't call me a 'centrist'.

There are only two valid uses for the term 'political centrist'. It's used to describe people who are apathetic about politics generally, and also used to describe people who believe that politics shouldn't be about 'arguments' and 'idealogy', but by 'common sense' and the views of 'the ordinary bloke'. Unfortunately, these two groups make up the vast majority of the population in any modern Western liberal democracy. And while AWordOnFailure is not a blog that endorses dictatorships (yet), none of these people deserve the right to vote.

First, the 'apathetic' centrist or more appropriately, the 'apePathetic centrist'. These people are given the term 'centrist' by political analysts and the media by the sole virtue that they stubbornly refuse to have an opinion on anything political. EVER. Their usual response to the question 'Who will you vote for?' will be either 'it doeznt mattr 2 me hu wins, ay' or 'fkuc, politicz is 4 fagz' or 'i dunno, dnt hav time 2 fink abt it, lulz'. I spent a very depressing year working for a political survey company, and this would be the majority of responses I would hear. It baffles me how people can view politics - the process that apportions how much of your money you keep, the limits that are placed on your freedom to do what you want, and what kind of things are so essential you should get them for free - as something that has no relevance to their daily lives. Everyone should have a view on whether tax is good or not, shouldn't they? Or whether the government or YOU should pay for your tertiary education?

It makes me sad that these people have the same number of votes as I do, because if they are kind enough to drag themselves away from their middling,pointless lives once every three years to go vote - their votes are normally based on decisions as nuanced as 'im not voting 4 Helen Clark, shez a lesbo' or 'hahaha, Rodney Hide was on Dancing with the Stars, what a crakup eh?'.
These people undermine the very principles of a thinking democratic society, and yet (probably because there are so many of them) the media doesn't admonish the fact these people are muppets, and seek to educate them on policy - it caters to them in it's political coverage, declaring that these people represent the 'centre', and turning politics into something they can enjoy, like a fun race over which party is winning in the polls today.

But, as appalling as these people are, there is a worse kind of so-called centrist - the populist centrist. New Zealand has been cursed throughout history with many of these people oozing their way into top political jobs. Think of Prime Minister Piggy Muldoon, or everyone in the NZ First, (Asians Never) Party. In claiming they represent the centre, these people have a simple mantra, 'Politics is being ruined by high-falutin' Politically-Correct academics, and should focus on policies that are 'common sense', and supported by the 'ordinary bloke', not the 'elite''.

Politics isn't about common sense, its a contest between two competing sets of values. When you vote, it's often said you are voting for what is 'best' for the future of your country. You're not. You're voting for what you think the defintion of 'best' is. For politicians to claim that they are not acting in the interests of some wanky intelligentsia, but on the salt-of-the-earth, readily agreeable common-sense policies of 'the mainstream', is disingenous at best and dangerous for a healthy democracy at worst. One man's 'common sense', (say, I think it's 'common sense' that everyone should be provided with basic socio-economic rights) is another man's epicfail. What's more is that this depiction of 'common sense' is innately conservative, attempting to change some unsavoury aspect of society, such as the inability of gays to have access to the rights afforded by marriage is often seen as the opposite of common sense - 'political correctness gone mad! LULZ'.

There's a difference between being 'centrist' and being moderate. Being moderate means you normally agree with the principle and values embodied by one side of the political spectrum, but you are also convinced by some of the arguments/values held by the other side. Being centrist either means you have no idea how politics works, or you are convinced that their is no other side - opposition to your common sense views is the work of a bunch of out-of-touch academics, who are probably gay. The fact that it's an acceptable political position is disgraceful.

Alex

AGuestOnFailure: Pakistan - A Time For Celebration?

2009-04-05T22:19:00.011+12:00

Today marks a monumental occasion in the often tragic history of A Word On Failure, with the first ever 'Special Guest Post!' Thanks go to Akif Malik, former opening batsman for the Hamilton Boys High 3rd XI, for preparing this eye-opening and insightful account of modern Pakistan and the immense challenges the nation faces. Of course, any one, any where at any time is welcome to submit a post (rant) to nelderanddaniels@gmail.com, we are heaps keen to get all sort of crazy topics, views and lulz on this blog. Plus, its better than reading Paul D rant about hippies....

Most Pakistanis will breathe a sigh of relief as news filters in that the government has reinstated the deposed Chief Justice. It comes in time for ordinary Pakistanis to put their inhibitions aside and partake in the traditional festival of basant that heralds the arrival of spring. The chronology of the crisis goes something like this, General Pervez Musharraf deposes the Chief Justice unconstitutionally before general elections in February 2008. His party is then roundly beaten in the elections by the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League (PML) who form a national unity government to rule the country. General Musharraf resigns as president leaving the PPP leader Asif Ali Zardari to take over. The PPP then fails to live up to its election promises of restoring the judiciary. The PML pulls out of government and embarks on a “long march” for the restoration of the judiciary. All this culminated yesterday in the PPP lead government finally agreeing to restore the unconstitutionally removed Supreme Court judges. So where does this leave Pakistan?

Most people agree that this is a step in the right direction; it paves the way for Pakistan’s two major political parties to work together. It also ends the bitter rivalry between the PML and PPP that was threatening to destabilise the recently elected government. One hopes that this moment marks an increase in maturity from both main political parties. In recent weeks the government was under pressure not just from the opposition but also from within its own cabinet. Sherry Rehman, herself a PPP minister resigned in protest at the government’s actions. The Chief of Army Staff General Kiyani also assured the public that the military would respect the democratic institutions in the country. All this augurs well for a reinvigorated democracy. It allows an opportunity for democracy to work. But before getting all pumped up and happy one should note that critical challenges remain.

Pakistanis have long looked at political parties and personalities with disdain. They think of democracy as a co-opt of the elite. An elite that plays a game of musical chairs in parliament, shockingly unaware of the injustice, inequity and hopelessness that infuriates the masses. The real test for both the judiciary and the political parties begins now. As one Pakistani journalist puts it “The reality is that neither man can tolerate an independent judiciary, as to do so would be quite contrary to their respective political natures.” This captures the real sentiments of the public. While they are keen for the restoration of the judiciary, they feel that neither Nawaz Sharif nor Zardari will allow the judiciary freedom to exercise its mandate. They find it hard to forget the attack by PML activists on the Supreme Court when Nawaz Sharif was in power in 1997, nor can they ignore Mr Sharif’s wish to imprison the then Chief Justice this puts Mr Sharif’s principled and moral stand under intense scrutiny. Similarly, the public remember Mr Zardari’s on the record statement offering a Supreme Court justice the office of chief justice of Pakistan providing he handed over an undated letter of resignation.

The problems don’t end with Pakistan though. If one casts an eye over the recent past to find the seeds of the conflict between the Musharraf government and the judiciary it becomes clear that the conflict emerged when the supreme court took an investigative interest in the missing persons cases. Since the War on Terror was initiated in 2001, Pakistan has been at the forefront of one of the bloodiest conflicts in the 21st century. Pakistan has lost more military personnel, police officials and civilians than any other country fighting in the war against terrorism. But pressure from the US government to “do more” has been relentless. This has led to the government embarking on scores of extra-judicial security measures. Measures that give security agencies such as the police, rangers and intelligence powers to imprison and detain people indefinitely. These measures have been highly unpopular, and its no surprise that they have been brought in question before the courts. The Supreme Court has questioned such government tactics and has instructed the government to produce a list of all detainees held without charges. This in turn creates tensions between the Supreme Court and the government, which is trying hard to win favours in the White House. It will be interesting to see if the reinstated chief justice continues proceedings in such missing persons cases.

It is natural for those in New Zealnd and the rest of the world to wonder why this is at all relevant to us. The Supreme Court and the reinstated judges have won the hearts and minds of the people. They’ve been commended for beginning the movement that liberated Pakistan from years of military rule under the military regime of Pervez Musharraf. These missing persons cases will allow the judiciary to re-establish itself as a check on the government. This is critical. In a political landscape where there are few strong and neutral institutions the re-emergence of the Supreme Court must be welcomed. For most of its existence the only stable institution in Pakistan has been the army. A reinvigorated supreme court will increase faith in the institutions of the state.

The judiciary also provides a bulwark against extremism. The militant extremists gain most of their support from the disdain felt towards a failing government. They have no real positive agenda for change. The only real attraction some Pakistanis find in the Taliban is their promise of efficient justice. Most commentators will look at any such promise from the militant islamists with suspicion. But for the millions of Pakistanis living in a state of constant fear and injustice, it’s a welcome relief. While they do not agree with most of the Taliban ideology, they are happy to ignore that. They ignore that as they can see the Taliban bringing some semblance of order and security to their society. It seems ironic even stupid to think so now, but don’t forget the decrease in poppy cultivation and crime when the Taliban were in charge in Afghanistan Also, factor in the contempt these people feel towards an elitist regime that has not only ignored their needs but periodically violated their most basic rights. Most Pakistanis feel that the government is a co-opt of the elite that acts positively to violate individual rights, in order to pander to western wishes.

Pakistan is easily the frontline on the war on terror. Its societal fabric has been burnt not just by suicide bombs but also through targeted drone strikes. Most if not all Pakistanis, have personally suffered as a direct result of the war on terror. In this environment, it should be politically palatable for a government to go after the Islamic militants. But it isn’t. It isn’t so because the war on terror is largely seen as a western effort that ignores the aspirations and values of the local population in Pakistan. While it would be grand to argue that a liberated supreme court can change this tide of public opinion, its is certainly plausible to suggest that an invigorated bench would help craft a Pakistani response to the war on terror. It provides recourse for relief. If the Supreme Court is successful at investigating the “missing persons cases” (people picked up by the ISI and CIA without any charges and held without convictions at unknown locations) it will provide a landmark. As it would signal that the court is an effective check on executive power. It would also open the possibility of putting questions before the court about the Pakistani intelligence activities, with regards to political manipulation with local elections and its involvement in the war on terror. All this would make ordinary Pakistanis realise that the war against militancy is not just an idle conflict fought to attract billions of dollars in US aid. But also a solution to Pakistan’s own problems.It would also help in changing the practices and perceptions of a corrupt government violating its citizen’s rights to pander to a western audience.

So, as the crowds gather in Lahore and the colourful kites fill the skies. It is indeed time for celebration; the restoration of the judges offers a rare silver lining. It provides, both the Pakistani government and the judiciary to win the hearts of its own people. But it also throws the challenge to the US and other foreign allies to work with the Pakistani people and not just blackmail the government into action. If the court shows a willingness to hold the government accountable and if the government proceeds to keep to the road of legality then peoples’ faith in the arms of government can be restored. And that is good, not just for Pakistan but also for a region that is starved of stable institutions. It is also critical in ensuring that providing a stable, honest and effective administration undermines the explicit and implicit support for militant extremists.

Akif Malik

April Fools?

2009-04-01T11:37:00.012+13:00

So it turns out that, while both of us are bitter blokes broken by society, we've got fundamentally different outlooks. What this means is that even though we'll sometimes be on the same page on an issue, most of the time we each think "wot wrong wit u foo?"

So what you get here is an explanation from each of us... we're each going to offer some deep critical insight (read: gross character assassination) into what's wrong with the others' perspective. It should be noted we intended this post to come out on the first day of the month, but in time honoured AWordOnFailure fashion, it didn't.

Enjoy.
Lol Always,
Paul & Alex

---

What's Wrong with Paul D?

'After all, what do I know? (Paul Daniels, AWordOnFailure)'

When I began blogging with Paul many months ago little did I know that I would be entering into an unholy alliance with the bastard lovechild of Niccolo Machiavelli and The Grinch. The ' twenty-something Canadian surfer-philosopher' exterior masks the true Paul D - a man with the stress levels of a 65-year old Air Traffic Controller and the twisted mind of Gollum. Paul D refers to himself as 'jaded'; but in reality when God was handing out compassion, Paul D was sitting in the corner, pulling the wings off butterflies and stealing candy bars from babies with spina bifida. Whats worse is that his contempt for humanity seems to grow at the same astonishing speed that his batting average plummets.

Paul D's blogposts are a reflection of a tortured, soulless misanthrope, and suffer from two fundamental flaws. The first is a solid, unthinking belief in the infallibility of his own ideas and the second is a bizzarre, unprincipled hatred for any one with a different idea to him. At various points throughout Paul D's rocky and wholly unsuccessful blogging career he has declared that Pop Music sucks because Paul D says it sucks, and that anyone who does not agree with him is an idealist who should kill themselves. In one particulary enlightening tantrum, Paul D declared that blogging was stupid, despite the fact that he was writing on....err, a blog.

Another thing. While Paul D's long-suffering co-blogger attempts to answer important questions such as ' How will history judge George W. Bush?' or 'Does Japan have a right to hunt whales?' and often answers them with wit, wisdom and lols - Paul D deems fit to fill the blog with questions such as 'When is it OK to leave Orange Juice in the Sun?' and 'What's the definition of Porn Star?' There are two kinds of Paul D posts. The first is 'Angry Ranting Paul', where Paul takes on something wholly innocous (such as sitting next to a poor person on a bus) and decides that it is the worse thing since the Holocaust. In these posts, Paul D often tries to channel the spirit of PJ O'Rourke, but often channels the spirit of Grandpa Simpson; and often sounds like the patron saint of upper-middle class elitist twats. The second is 'Wise and Reasonable Paul', where he attempts to be an impartial social observer and make a definitive pronouncement on some middling aspect of social relations (often subjecting Jimmy and Jenny to a bunch of mundane household chores in the process). Often, Paul D takes a lot of words to say what everyone already knew - classics include his pronouncement that 'talking about boring things is boring', and that 'you should tell your partner if you have an STD'.

In conclusion, 1) Paul D's posts are often short because he has nothing interesting to say, 2) Paul D is sometimes wrong and 3) it is a well known fact that Paul D chucks, not bowls, the ball in a game of backyard cricket. I could say more, but I think that's enough for now. After all, wouldn't want people to think I actually have an opinion. These are things I have thought through, but will give the impression that I made it up on the spot. After all, I know more than you, so shut up.

---

What's Wrong with Alex?

For a few reasons, hippies are the scourge of the earth. One of which is that the typical hippy is an idealist. Now I'm not gonna stand here and suggest Alex is a hippy; he may be a lot of things (read: womanizer), but he has repeatedly told me that "free is another word for socialism." Because being a socialist is another hallmark of our typical hippy I think we can safely infer that Alex is not one... despite his other hippy qualities (e.g. intentionally keeping his living space the opposite of clean). But Alex is, at the very least, an idealist. You might have missed this, since the only interesting things about his posts are the titles, but if you take the time (read: days) to check out his posts you'd come to know the Alex that I do. TREATFEST!

In the long (read: short) tradition of AWordOnFailure, Alex has consistently written concise (read: convoluted) posts about everything from why it's okay for him to slept with his own MILF to why it's NOT okay for him to sleep with his teacher-who-is-also-a-prostitute. But inconsistency aside, when Alex isn't preaching who you should and shouldn't be allowed to have sex with, Alex likes to tackle the “important” issues we face (read: make kingly proclamations about what people should do, while not doing anything about it himself). We see this when he says we shouldn't let staving kids starve and why kiwi's aren't good enough at being kiwis. But this is the plight of idealists: shooting for the stars, then when it comes time to buck up, making for the exit. Why are idealists like this? Well, cuz deep down inside they know that if the world was as perfect that they want it to be, it just wouldn't work. And Alex knows this: he's repeatedly told me “the world would be an awful place if everyone were happy” and written about why he's against jokes. WORST CHRISTMAS EVER!

But hold the phone: not all idealists are like this – some of 'em actually take steps to actualize the changes they advocate. They make sacrifices in their lifestyles so that the underprivileged they support can have it a little better; they protest the public policy decisions they believe are wrong. So I guess it's just Alex who, instead of spending his energy fighting those who try to discriminate on the basis of membership of a group and dress code Alex goes on holidays to the sex tourism capital of Thailand (gah!). And instead of helping ensure the death penalty has no home in NZ, he hides away alone at the top of his ivory tower indulging in his own mundane interests that involve no one else. ROFLCOPTER!

I guess it's easy enough to excuse Alex for these crimes. His inability to put a coherent sentence together when speaking (thanks to cleft palate) probably relates to his inability to formulating a coherent written sentence (thanks to being raised in a barn and molested as a child). So he's doing the best he can (i.e. being a law student who is physically unable, thanks to his club foot, to make it to class on time). But, at the end of the day, Alex is just confused by his own inconsistency. After all, it's hard to know what he really thinks when he write posts denouncing some political leaders while defending W. bush AND “So-Dame Insane” (as Alex colloquially refers to the late leader of Iraq). LULZ!!1!

The Virtuous Skank

2009-03-31T23:31:00.004+13:00

“You're just really wondering 'are we gonna get hopped up enough to make some bad decisions?' ” (Vince Vaughan, 'Wedding Crashers')

Everyone from the Marquis de Sade to Bertrand Russell have written about the setbacks sexual morality suffered at the hands of Christianity – most notably the idea that sex play, except for reproduction, is something a morally good person avoids. And even though their work, coupled with such things as the feminist and 'hippy' revolutions of the 20th century, have helped over come a lot of those setbacks that doesn't mean all's fair. By that I mean while sexual activity outside of love or marriage shouldn't be considered necessarily immoral, but there does seems to be a right way and a wrong way to go about it... and the way in which a lot of sexually indiscriminate people are sexually indiscriminate seems to be done in an immoral way.

As I often do, let me explain through a few related example.

Take Boy A. He's a nice guy. But, unfortunately, he's got chlamydia. This doesn't stop him from having some fun when he meets someone new at a bar. I think most reasonable, morally centered, people would say he acts immorally if he doesn't tell his newly acquired “partner” of his condition. In failing to disclose that info he's putting his interests ahead of hers; that is, were she to find out he's got an STI, she might decide to pass on their prospective romantic encounter (something he doesn't wanna risk). But, in virtue of that possibility, he's got future-oriented obligations towards her. That is, he's got obligations towards her that go beyond their immediate encounter - even if they'd never see each other again. So we can say Boy A here is being unfair to her if he hides (i.e. fails to disclose) his condition. Note that this is a moral obligation on his part. Some might say that she's got the obligation to ask; but that'd be a prudential obligation for her own welfare. So while it might be foolish for her to fail to ask, she's not doing something morally wrong by failing to bring it up (whereas, because his obligation is moral in nature, he would be doing something wrong by failing to bring it up).

So I think that's pretty obvious. Let's look at a similar case where I think similar obligations crop up.

Take Girl Y. She's a nice girl. But, she's not interested in getting into a relationship; she's only interested in sex. Now it could be the case that the cute boy at the rave isn't looking for the same thing (he might be, say, looking for a relationship or just someone to make out with). In virtue of that possibility, it seems to me that she acts immorally if she fails to tell her new prospective partner what she's looking for from him and how her interests are limited to sex. That is, like Boy A, she's got future-oriented obligations: their encounter could have lasting repercussions for the other – for example, if he was keen to date her, imagine is dismay (and probable emotional harm) when she rebuffs him the next morning. So, again like Boy A, just because she's keen for a lil fun tonight doesn't mean it's okay for her to have it at the expense of someone else who isn't fully informed about where things are going to end. In failing to inform her new partner about the limits of her interests she's done something wrong here; if he were properly informed he might decide to just pass of the whole thing and, perhaps, try to find someone else whose interests match his own.

Having said that, there are 2 dissimilarity between the Boy A case and the Girl Y case: (1) For Boy A, he's the only one doing something wrong (his partner, assuming she's clean, isn't); whereas both Girl Y and her partner are likely both committing the same wrong. Neither of them, I presume, clarify the limits of their interests at the outset of their encounter. Nevertheless, they are both still being unfair to the other; the fact that both are treating the other unfairly doesn't excuse that behavior. (2) the harm Boy A might do to his prospective partner seems more serious that the harm Girl Y might cause. I mean, really, her partner will probably just end up being disappointed (whereas Boy A's partner might end up diseased). But that's not the point. Just because it's a smaller harm doesn't make it negligible. At the end of the day Girl Y is using him as a mean to an end – she's using him as a tool to get she wants.

So, what I'm saying is this: If you're a slut, that's only going to be okay if you do it right. And doing it right involves ensuring your new “partner” is properly informed. If you fail to do that, you've acted immorally.

Having said that, 3 last things to note: (1) while a lot of slut-type actions are done when alcohol is involved (and judgment impaired), that doesn't dismiss moral obligations. Just because you're too drunk to do the right things doesn't get you off the hook. (2) There's, surely, more to the story – that is, failing to meet the obligations I've discussed here isn't the only way you can be an immoral slut. (Can you think of others? Write 'em in a comment!) (3) It's, clearly, the case that it's imprudent for sluts to meet the obligations I've outlined here. But a lot of the time prudence and morality don't recommend the same course of action. Such is life: you can often do either the prudent thing or the right thing, but not both. …so long story short: if you can't be a morally good slut, you shouldn't be a slut at all. 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.

Keeping it in the Family : Why my family reunions will be awkward for everafter.

2009-03-30T16:30:00.004+13:00

I'm hella busy with life at the moment, but I could no longer ignore Paul D's anguished cries that demanded I post. So, I'm posting - but it's a rehash of a written debate I was a part of in this weeks Craccum. (Auckland University's Student Magazine.) So apologies if you have already it, and apologies to Craig Riddell- in turning a written debate into blogpostform, I made his points sound crappier than they really were. If you can get a hold of Craccum read the whole thing, you should - tis' a treatfest.

Maybe it’s a direct consequence of my upbringing in New Zealand’s isolated rural heartland, but I’m a supporter of the legalisation of incest. But lest you, the faithful and dwindling reader(s) of A WordOnFailure, suddenly conjure up images of me as a depressing and vile little man that refers to his own mother a MILF, let me explain. I may be depressing, and I may be vile, but I still find sex between a brother /sister, mother /son, father/daughter, grandma/uncle to be yucky and gross.

But, as I’ve posted before (ad nauseum), the criminal justice system shouldn’t exist to protect my delicate and sheltered little mind from stuff I find yucky, gross and morally objectionable. One of the most basic tenets of any liberal democracy is that the law must be value-neutral, not something that gives preference to one set of values over another. The point of the criminal law should be to prevent identifiable harms and violations of the rights of others (like if I hit you or stole your shoes). The continued criminalisation of incest represents a flagrantly unprincipled violation of people’s ability to choose who they are, and choose who they love. In essence, society freely declares the love of committed, loving, CONSENTING couples a social taboo that carries a maximum sentence of TEN YEARS, simply because it makes the majority feel sorta queasy. Incest couples seem creepy and weird and a tiny, tiny minority, but that’s no reason to trample on their basic rights.

In fact, as a minority group, it is even more important that it should fall to the government to lead the way and show that those who engage in a consensual practice deserve the tolerance of society (even if that consensual practice is utterly bizarre). It was once considered normal to condemn homosexuality as an unnatural practice deserving of criminal sanction, but the passing of proactive legislation by the Government in 1986 was the catalyst for a change of social attitudes. Those who denied the important right to love on spurious moral grounds (the ‘ahh, its gross’ defence) are now consigned to the bigoted dustbin of history. But there are those who would argue that their support of incest criminalisation, isn’t based on indefensible moral postulating, but is grounded in a principled and conscientious protection against social harms. These people are Noobs.

The first argument people raise against incest is that it increases the chances of harmful genetic diseases occurring in the offspring of incestcouples. (The, ‘ahh, retard babies’ defence) It’s different from inbreeding in that it involves first cousins or closer. While I’m not denying the heightened risk of a genetic deformity, research shows that the common perception overstates the risks. But more importantly Criminalising incest on the grounds that it may lead to a deformed child (even if the couple don’t want children, those who would argue the ‘ahh, retard babies defence’ appear to have lost all faith in the condom as fail-safe baby preventer, and have decided to cockblock with the Crimes Act itself), seems fundamentally inconsistent with a society that allows people with a known hereditary deformity (say haemophilia) to enter into relationships and have children. Surely these parents carry the same risk of a costly genetic epicfail? If the ‘ahhh, retard babies defence’ holds then people with haemophilia should not only be prevented from baby-making, but anyone evil enough to have sex with a haemophiliac should be punished with the full force of the criminal law. This seems palpably absurd.

The next argument raised is better, but still flawed. Opponents of incest would suggest that because incest is SOOO GROSS and SOOO TABOO in so many cultures, it can’t be the result of a free and informed choice – and must be the result of a lifetime of an uneven power relationship. (Essentially this argument says we can’t prove that Daddy has groomed Daughter all her life to love him, so we criminalise it to protect the children.) At first glance, this argument appears intuitively valid- especially as I don’t really wanna defend smokin’ Joe Fritzl and the Vienna 7. But the criminal law remains well-equipped to deal with cases where people have been coerced into sex because of an uneven power relationship – on a more frivolous level; a secretary can’t be fired if she doesn’t have sex with the boss. Child abuse and rape remains a sickening, unspeakable crime and those guilty of it should be (and are) convicted and punished accordingly. But we cannot use this as an argument to punish those incestuous couples who are genuinely in a loving relationship based on mutual consent.

Sure, it’s gross, sticky and weird. Really gross, really sticky, and really weird, even. But an incestuous love is still love, and still worth protecting.

Alex.

(Als0, sorry for that bizarre and horrifically bad-taste link in the previous paragraph. It made me sad, and I didnt want to suffer alone. For a better, cogent analysis of incest click here.

A Woman's Place

2009-03-22T17:37:00.002+13:00

“We would rather have one man or woman working with us than three merely working for us.” (J. Dabney Day)

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of getting women in the workplace. And, to generalize, I'm pro gender equality. Why wouldn't I be? But sometimes the solutions that are employed to address gender relation issues just seem to go about things the wrong way. Firefighting is an excellent example.

Take Jenny. Growing up, Jenny always wanted to be a firefighter. Of course she's never been as strong as Jimmy, who also always wanted to be a firefighter. So, unfortunately for Jenny, when it came time for Jenny and Jimmy to take the required fitness test, only Jimmy passed; Jenny was unable to run the required 2.5 kilometers fast enough. So Jimmy gets to be a firefighter while Jenny doesn't.* What's wrong with this picture?

In short, nothing at all. But some people (whether they're idealists, feminists, Maoists, or just biochemists) might try to chirp up and call this outcome unfair. They might argue that having one fitness test for both men and women is inappropriate and discriminatory in virtue of the fact that women are genetically predisposed to have a lower aerobic capacity then men. That is, to appropriately promote equality in the workplace, women should take a different test - one designed for women, based on the typical capacities of a woman; i.e. one not as strenuous as the one men have to take.

Now, I reject this for a few simple reasons. For one, focusing on the capabilities of people taking the test is the wrong places to put the emphasis. At the end of the day, firefighters - regardless of whether the person is a man or woman – are going to be doing the same thing (e.g. carrying someone out of a burning building). Tests, such as the one necessary to become a firefighter, should be reflective of the job. I'm not saying the test should be representative of the hardest physical situation someone might find themselves in on that job; maybe it should be the average. I don't know. And I don't really care. That's not important. Because the responsibilities will be the same for someone in such a role regardless of their gender, the should be held to the same standards. That's what's important. So some solutions to some problems go about it in the wrong way – they seek to fix a genuine problem (e.g. there being too few women in the workplace) without addressing the core issues that actually cause the problem in the first. But, then, the idealists might ask: what would be the best (or even better) way to get women into the workforce in appropriate numbers? Especially for something like firefighting? I don't know. But just because I can't offer an alternative doesn't mean that my objection to these kinds of backwards solutions are unjustified. And so, even without a solution in hand that will work to fix the root problem, we should not employ such bad “solutions”.

Having said that, when you distill it, this post isn't so much about firefighters (or even women in the workplace); it's about women-only gyms. I'm not a fan of them. I understand that such facilities are there for women who don't feel comfortable exercising in the same environment as men. And I agree that it's important for everyone to be comfortable exercising. But here their comfort comes at too high of a cost. Here segregation is used as a the wrong means to a proper end. This solution doesn't seek to address the root causes for why some women aren't comfortable exercising around men. Women-only gyms promote the mentality that it's okay for women to not be comfortable in an environment where they should be able to feel comfortable. So, while initially looking like a good thing, is actually harmful. In short, women-only gyms (like different fitness tests for prospective women firefighters than prospective men firefighters) are like sticking a band-aid on a broken leg - it might look and feel like it's helping but, really, it's not; it's just letting the real problem fester and get worse.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is this: (1) we should try to address the real reasons which strain, and hold back the advancement of, gender relations; and (2) we shouldn't accept solutions that fail to do that, even if they might make things better in some limited capacity. 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.

*NB: This example is loosely based on an actual case in Canada. See here for a real short news story about it.

It's Satire, Stew it? Why Jon Stewart's 'Jim Cramer' interview was dangerous and wrong.

2009-03-16T23:16:00.006+13:00

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Basic Cable Personality Clash Skirmish '09

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

This is how Jon Stewart reported Jim Cramer's appearance on NBC's 'Morning Joe'.

Last week, I ended a four year love affair, and in the end it was much easier to let go than I thought it would be. In simpler times, a more naive version of me had loved this man, had hung on every word he had said, had believed in him. He made me laugh, then he made me think, then he made me cry. I wasn't the only one who loved him, millions of people felt like I did, felt that through his sense of humour and sharp, beautiful wit, he was making our crappy lives a little better. He became someone that all of us thought we knew, that all of us thought we could rely on. I didn't see the destructive power of what he was doing until it was too late. I'm not sure he realised what he was doing to me, but he was twisting my emotions, distorting my view of the world, turning me into a cynical,bitter husk of a man who hated on the world he inhabited, and lost all respect for the very institutions of society. Worse, even as I realised what I had become, the intoxicating power of his words had even more people left in his thrall. This man is Jon Stewart.

I think I was the only person on the entire planet who watched Jon Stewart's now infamous interview with Jim 'Mad Money' Cramer last week and felt disgusted not just with Jim Cramer, but also with Jon Stewart. For those of you who missed it (and I strongly suggest googling the interwebs and tracking it down, it should be on Comedy Central's web site) the interview was a culmination of a week-long feud between Jim Cramer and the muppets posing as financial analysts that inhabit the CNBC financial news network vs. Jon Stewart, his Daily Show leviathan and what appeared to be every twitterer,bloggerer and casual facebooker on the entire fucking Internet. To watch the interview itself, is like watching the school bully struggle to read out his apology letter in front of the whole school - compelling viewing, but leaving you to feel desperately uncomfortable. Cramer was totally eviscerated, his credibility as a financial analyst, an expert and a man extinguished by a Jon Stewart acid attack on his previous financial advice, his dodgy past and on the sorry state of financial analysis in general. In all honesty, Cramer probably deserved it - he had after all built himself up as a master of the market whose advice could be trusted, when in fact he appears to have as much financial acumen as the homeless guy on K Road that has one giant dreadlock. But this interview was especially troubling for me because it cemented the role of Jon Stewart, comedian, as one of the most important and insightful figures on the political left. And worse, much of Stewart's criticisms of Cramer apply more to Jon Stewart himself.

Stewart's fundamental criticism of Cramer was that he would make statements he knew that people would believe and rely on, but when the advice he offered turned out to be wrong (and financially disastrous for those who had relied on it), Cramer would claim all he was really doing was providing a form of entertainment. And yet, the modus operandi of Jon Stewart, a clever and dedicated man surrounded by a cleverer and more dedicated team of writers, is to cleverly edit video clips of prominent politicians, media-types and politicised figures, take statements out of context and make that person look ridiculous. If you have ever watched his show, you will know he is very, very good at it. The best example of this was his clip that began the whole CNBC v Stewart feud, where he accused CNBC's reporter Rick Santelli of being vehemently against bailouts only when they reached ordinary Americans, not big business. (Santelli had been advocating against the proposed bailout for homeowners unable to pay their mortgage.) In fact, Santelli had voiced loud, vocal and continued opposition against all bailouts right from the very beginning.

And yet, even the most idiotic AUTU scholar on their first day of a 'Bachelor' of 'Communications' 'degree' knows quoting people out of context is terribly unethical journalism. (If I said to you 'I am disgusted that some people think women should not vote' and you quoted me as saying 'Women should not vote' and published it, I'd be suing yo' ass fo' defamation). Jon Stewart knows that people watch his show not as a source of comedy, but as a source of news. Despite this, he continues to maintain that he is not bound by a need for fairness and accuracy, because he is not a journalist, he is a comedian - hiding behind a veil of ' frivolous entertainment' when it is clear his show is relied on by people as something more.

At several times throughout the Cramer interview, Stewart loudly urged Cramer to stop treating financial reporting as a 'game'. But Stewart himself seems set on treating the news, institutions of government and politics as a game where he's the only player who really understands the rules and where everyone else is an idiot. It's dead wrong. I realise that Stewart is a satirist, and I realise that satire is an important medium for raising mass awareness about unsavoury aspects of government activity. (Apparently, people listen to you if they think you're gonna entertain, not bore them). But the lampooning of political figures shouldn't be an false attempt to undermine trust and confidence in people and institutions that have acted in a way that is just, ethical and efficient - just to gain cheap laughs.

Sometimes, it's hard to be on the left-wing of the political spectrum. For one thing, we are required to make progressive cases for unpopular social issues - speaking from personal experience, NOTHING kills a family reunion faster than asking your elderly great-great aunt 'If incest is consensual, what's the problem??!?'. And when members of the right-wing get together, it normally involves a country club with comfy chairs, free club sandwiches, and the children of the super-wealthy telling 'non-politically correct' jokes and drinking expensive cocktails paid for by Daddy's credit card. Left-wing get togethers traditionally take place in the rain, involve throwing shoes at tennis players, and are frequented by a bunch of middle-aged unemployed Marxists whose committment to remaining part of the proletariat is exceeded only by their non-committment to personal hygiene. But the hardest bit is dealing with a general unwillingness by members of the left to criticise one of their own when they are acting in a way that is unreasonable. And Jon Stewart is a liberal hero- a relentless critic of the Bush Administration. Everyone has their favourite Stewart moment, I replay his 9/11 speech every year. But that doesn't mean Stewart is immune to criticism. In his attacks on Cramer, he has overstepped the line between satire and unethical journalism. He must return to doing what he does best - making us laugh and making us think. And he must do it soon.

Alex

This is what actually happened.

Hey Fatty – Why don't You Have Another cheeseburger!?!

2009-03-14T13:29:00.002+13:00

“Is she fat? Her favorite food is seconds” (Joan Rivers)

We all know that it used to be the case that smoking was socially acceptable; like 10 or so years ago. Before that, in the 60s or 70s, smoking was even considered cool. (Gaw!) But that no longer the case; now it's a social taboo. And one of the main reasons it's fallen out of favor is because of the harm it causes – not only to the smoker herself, but also to those around the smoker. It's to the point now that if your friend lights up you might say something like: “What the fuck are you doing man? That's a filthy habit and it's bad for you!” The funniest part about this is that the smoker will often reply: “Ya, dude, I know. Sorry. I totally gotta quit one of these days.” While it's her individual choice to smoke, it's not politically incorrect for the rest of us to chastise her for smoking; we're socially allowed to berate her for this lifestyle choice she's made.

But, oddly enough, it remains politically incorrect for us to single out and scold other harmful lifestyle choices people make; like being fat and unhealthy. I mean, if you see a 300 lbs woman walking away from the McDonald's counter with 3 Big Macs and an extra large coke (obviously all just for her), it's considered not okay for you say “Jesus, what are you doing lady?!? Are you looking to die of diabetes?”

The unhealthy lifestyle choices that lead to obesity, or even just being overweight, are harmful. But (like smoking) these lifestyle choices are also harmful to the rest of us. The health problems that come with obesity strain our health cares systems; our comfort is taxed when having to squeeze in to a seat next to a fat person on a plane or bus; and (if you'll let me be a lil crass) our field of vision is polluted by their lumbering size.

At the end of the day the problem with fat people stems, in large part, from the overindulgence culture of our contemporary western society – where quantity is valued over quality. And our social inability to address this problem is rooted in the trouble with political correctness – the idea that I'm not okay, and you're not okay; but we're okay, because it's okay for us to not be okay. Sorry, but that's bullshit. We should be held to the expectation to excel and be the best we can be (in all regards); not to resign ourselves to be content with our own mediocrity. We shouldn't be allowed to be crappy; by that I mean, political correctness shouldn't protect these kinds of decisions.

Sure, the tub lovers will pipe up with things like “some fattys can't help it, man, they're just big boned or it's in their genes.” And I don't contest that. But at the end of the day the fact that someone is big is a good indicator that they just aren't living a sufficiently healthy lifestyles. While this is an inductive inference, but it's a justifiable one. At the core my point is that they (as well as all of us, of course) should live active and healthy lifestyles. If someone looks big despite being appropriately healthy and active, that's okay (but unfortunate for him or her).

So, when you distill it, this post is less about what's wrong with fat people and more about what's wrong with poor lifestyle choices and the hypocrisy of considering some such choices acceptable (e.g. being unhealthy) while considering other to be not acceptable (e.g. smoking). We shouldn't be condemned for condemning the unhealthy people for being fat. 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.

Aid First

2009-03-10T09:38:00.003+13:00

My last positive act to eliminate the world of poverty was a pathetic attempt to complete the '40 hour famine' was I was 11. I ate three packs of barley sugars (the only sustenance you are allowed to have) in the first two hours, was violently ill and spent the rest of the weekend recovering and eating my left-over Easter Eggs. I still made my Grandmother give me the $5 dollar sponsorhip, however, but I think I spent a dollar of it on a can of Fanta. Charges of hypocrisy, with respect to anything I say on the subject of foreign aid are therefore wholly justified. But at least I can claim to have done it on wholly altruistic grounds. That's more than can be said about the new aid policy of the New Zealand government.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully, a man whose name would not look out of place in a book by Lynley Dodd, recently announced a review of the governments aid policy and the structure of the government's aid dispensing body NZAID. That's all well and good, ministers newly settled into portfolios that they have coveted for the better part of a decade are want to produce a report that shows just how rubbish the last minister, and their political rival, was at doing their job. But, McCully's 'review' goes deeper than merely seeing whether aid money has been spent effectively - in fact McCully will not be satisfied unless he has changed the very definition of 'effectiveness'. He appears poised to take away the autonomous status of NZAID and subsuming this organisation with the umbrella of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, on the grounds that NZAID's stated goal of 'poverty elimination' has become too broad, and that aid dispensation should be directed to greater enhance New Zealand's foreign policy aims. In other words, New Zealand's aid money isn't 'effective' if it is helping some of the most destitute people on the planet drag themselves out of dire poverty, its only 'effective' if it in some way strengthens New Zealand's position on the world stage. For two reasons, McCully's policy is an unmitigated disaster.

The first reason is that judging aid on the criterion of 'poverty elimination' has a strong basis in morality. New Zealand currently gives aid money because it has determined that it has obligations as a good international citizen to improve the standard of living of those who are unfortunate enough to live in states less awesome than New Zealand, without an abundance of natural resources and a stable political system. (C'mon, the most important news story of the first three months of 2009 was the Prime Minister falling down the stairs).And, given that New Zealand's $480 million dollar aid budget is mostly directed towards Pacific micro-states that have almost been completely forgotten about by the international community in its scramble to save Africa, our country's aid money makes real difference in people's lives. McCully, in his role as Opposition spokesman for Foreign Affairs, expressed outrage that despite this large sum of money allocated towards our neighbours every year, Japan was able to make many of these states alter their stance on whaling (from wanting to save the whales to wanting Japan to eat the whales) through offering aid assistance, but making it conditional on this policy flip-flop. Furthermore, McCully believes that withholding aid from Fiji while it labours under the authoritarian command of Frank Banimarama would help speed up its return to democracy. He's probably right to be angry, and he's probably right that withholding aid would in the long-run return Fiji back to democratic status. But this doesn't make it ok to tie provision of aid to 'what's in the best interests of New Zealand'. Poverty eradication and improving lives must be the first,second and third priorities for aid - and it abhorrent that those most deserving could be denied the opportunity to meet their most basic needs solely because their state does not offer New Zealand key diplomatic, security or economic opportunities.

Even if you disagree with me on the 'moral basis' for aid, and think I'm some sort of liberal sociology-studying pansy who should get a job so he can afford to patch up his bleeding heart, tying aid to NZ's foreign policy goals is not only immoral - it is intransparent and inefficient. McCully came up with a pathetic and widely-derided example that the practice of throwing money out of a helicopter would be enough to satisfy NZAID's sole goal of 'poverty elimination' under the current regime. He followed this up with the tired old hobby-horse of the New Zealand conservative movement, that it was time aid was a 'hand-up not a hand-out'. While aid agencies are infinitely smarter than the money-throwing hippies McCully would desperately like to portray them as, maybe there is truth in the idea that NZAID's budget could be better used. But the big problem with McCully's strategy is that when aid programmes are focused not just on poverty eradication, but also on other goals - such as fostering commercial opportunities for New Zealand businesses, it becomes wholly impossible to assess how sucessful an aid programme was at satisfying any of its aims. The problem is that when aid becomes just another tool in the kit for satisying some inscrutable goal of NZ foreign policy the focus of aid distribution becomes too focused on creating programmes that make New Zealand appear a committed and legitimate donor, rather than focusing on programmes that are actually effective and get on with the core business of improving lives.

NZ's aid policy is in dire need of review. Despite our obligations to the UN's Millenium Development Goals that state we must set aside 0.8% of our GDP for foreign aid, New Zealand contributes a shameful 0.35% (and even this is a high-water mark, and vast improvement on previous years). And too often, New Zealand contributes only to short term projects, allowing aid-recieving governments to see aid as a one-off sweetener to their domestic budget rather than a long-term source of income that they can use to make extensive and badly needed infrastructural reforms. But despite this, NZAID has over the last decade transformed itself into an organisation that is adept at providing aid with is effective, humanitarian and easily harmonised into indigenous policy-making. That's why it is a shame that the stated goal of McCully's review is to reinvent the wheel, and demand that the only good aid is aid that advances NZ's economic, diplomatic and security agenda. It represents a step backward for New Zealand's international reputation as a good moral international citizen. And it represents a giant leap backward for the lives of the South Pacific's most poorest people. It must be abandoned.

Alex

A Time for Revenge?

2009-03-03T09:29:00.002+13:00

“Revenge does not long remain unrevengd.” (German Proverb)

I wanna talk a bit about fairness today. More specifically, fairness when it comes to justice. What do I mean by that? I mean: when some wrong as been committed against you, what kind of response is fair? And I'm talking about the sort of wrongs that typically fall outside our legal system. So what I really want to chat about, specifically, is a kind of retributive justice – revenge. Strictly speaking, retributive justice is a theory of justice where the punishment for a wrong is proportional to the harm done by that wrong; “an eye for an eye” kind of thing. More informally, I think this is tantamount to saying (proportional) revenge is permissible.

We all seem to instinctively have a compulsion or desire for revenge; when you get harmed two wrongs certainly seem capable of making things right. But it also seems like a more robust conception of fairness should hinge on something more than revenge and, maybe, even consider vengeful acts impermissible. So what I want to find out is: how intertwined is our conception of fairness with the permissibility of reprisals? If vengeance seems so intuitively right, why is it that a lot of us intuitively think we shouldn't dish out revenge? Our dispositions towards apologies and forgiveness seem relevant here; but it’s prima facie unclear why saying “sorry” makes up for a wrong in the same what revenge might.

Okie dokie. Let look at a case: Meet Jimmy. Jimmy's a jerk. One day, Jimmy left his flatmate's (Jenny) bottle of orange juice on the counter with the cap off and all kinds of ants and bugs got all in there. Gross. Her OJ is now a waste. Is it fair for Jenny to intentionally leave some food product of similar value that belongs to Jimmy out so that it spoils? Hmm. Even though Jenny might think “Jimmy, ya jerk”, I don't think she's got the right to intentionally ruin something of his; even if the reprisal is proportional. (If you're a retrubutivist, you'll probably have the conflicting intuition here.) Even though this reprisal would be proportional, the harm suffered by Jenny hardly seems sufficient to warrant any kind of act that has the intent of harming Jimmy. After all, don't sweat the small stuff, right?

But it's a different story if we tweak the case so that Jimmy intentionally left the OJ out to spoil it. Even though this remains a small harm to Jenny, the fact that Jimmy specifically set out to harm her surely becomes relevant. But, even then, she may not be permitted to take revenge and set out to intentionally harm him inretaliation. A lot of people here would say things like "take the high road" or "be the bigger person" or whatever.

Alright, so what about a bigger harm? What if Jimmy deleted Jenny's PhD dissertation a week before she was going to submit it. In this instance, whether or not he intended to do it seems far less relevant (if at all). We could, maybe, say that Jimmy owed her a degree of diligence to not do something like that. While this “due care” kind of clause likely also holds in the OJ case, there it seems more trivial – there are more important things than the OJ. But destroying someone's near finished PhD is pretty important; that is, a dissertation is far more important to someone that their bottle of juice.

So, here, then, is Jenny permitted to retaliate? Hmm. Even now I'm unsure. But what if Jimmy wasn't sorry or apologetic for deleting her dissertation? Now it looks like a case of him not willing to make amends for the wrong he did. So, do that mean Jenny now has the right to “balance the books”? At this point, finally, my intuitions are starting to lean towards yes. But I have reservations.

Without getting into those reservations or looking at other case, here's what I think we got: taking revenge, while having a compulsion to do it, is generally inappropriate. It's often not something you should do because the harm is either negligible or because the wrongdoer takes steps to make amends. However, in other instances – where the harm isn't negligible or the wrongdoer refuse to make (appropriate amends) – committing some vengeful act may be permitted. Right? 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.

Just an Opinion?

2009-03-03T09:16:00.002+13:00

While I don't want to put words in Paul D's mouth (or on his page, as may be more suitable here), I think it would be fair comment to say that we have both been struggling to come up with blog posts lately. Partly, this has been because we've been intensely busy with real world things (ok, Paul has been busy, and I've been playing a lot of Stick Cricket.) But I also think it reflects the difficulty, after nearly 6 months of blogging, of consistently coming up with issues that we think are interesting, presenting arguments that we think are well-reasoned and putting them out in the public sphere for anyone to read, analyze and tear to shreds. Again, I can't claim to speak for Paul - but when I first started blogging, I couldn't figure out if I was doing it because I wanted to gain a cult following of thousands of readers and be anointed as the liberal Rush Limbaugh of the internets, or if I was doing it simply because I wanted to create an 'opinion snapshot' of a certain period of my life, with reader comments being a exciting, welcomed but unintended byproduct of my spasmodic brainvomits. And I guess I still haven't decided why I'm doing this. Probably because its more fun than reading my Company Law textbook. (Yuck.)

I think the greatest tension I have found is between trying to write consistently, and trying to write perfectly. When I first started, I set myself a goal of two posts a week. In that regard, I'm a complete and utter fail - the James Buchanan of bloggers - but I've still tried to update regularly, because I figure its good for self-discipline, and good to ensure that my half of the blog doesn't collapse into disuse. That has led to several times when I've pushed 'Publish' on a post I'm not entirely happy with, or in many cases not happy with at all. Its one thing to expose your naked thoughts to the violent, swirling maelstrom of the internets, but its another thing to expose your thoughts when you convinced that what you are showing is wholly inadequate. Don't get me wrong, I'm inordinately proud of some of my posts - but there are others that the moment I read them over again the next morning, I cringe. I guess this is why I write, in a stream of conciousness style, very late at night, or the moment I wake up. I'm less picky then, even if I lose ALL ability to keep my word count within a readable limit (much to Paul's chagrin).

In a way, I'd like to think that through the constant verbiage that spills on this page, I'm contributing to the fine intellectual tradition of the 'opinion column'. In a sense, an opinion column is a first draft of history - the immediate responses of reasonably intelligent people (who are not, and should not claim to be experts in the field they write on) to a particular event or issue. By producing my opinion on a given topic, I'm taking a stance on the issues of our time, trying to convince other people like me of the cogency of my arguments or at the very least, fostering a reasoned debate which doesn't take place in a rarified academic circumstances, but between a couple of ordinary citizens who give a damn.

I realise that to a large extent, my previous paragraph was a manifestion of some Winstonesque delusions of grandeur. AWordOnFailure's readership is almost totally derived from friends I've bullied into checking it out, and people who googled the term 'Teen Harlot'. (Seriously. Although, I should add, both Paul and I always excited when we get comments from 'randoms from the internets', so thankyou 'randoms'.) But my delusions of grandeur shouldn't detract from the power of the opinion column to have real impact on public opinion and on the direction of intellectual tradition in a liberal democracy, generally. Which is why it is to the great shame of newspapers New Zealand-wide, that our current opinion columnists are lacklustre. Compare the columns that appear on the New York Times, with the columns that appear on the 'stuff' website (a collection of many major NZ newspapers). I'd encourage you to look at both those links, but the striking difference for me was that while the New York times columnists offered idealogically principled, progressive approaches to the big issues of our time, the New Zealand columnists were content to offer reactionary commentary,that was in line with the public sentiment and not a deep analysis of whether those sentiments should be ones the public should be proud of. (This is not say, that I think I am the great white hope of New Zealand journalism, and I alone could bring the light of awesomess to the dark cesspit of New Zealand opinion writing. If you have read my previous posts, I clearly couldn't. But unlike the people (and Michael Laws) who write for major newspapers - I don't get paid to produce flagrantly unprincipled drivel.) Maybe, I'm wrong. I do have a major case of AmericaEnvy that could cloud my judgement so I would be interested, as always, to hear what you think.

I started writing this post, because I felt I needed to write a post, and had no ideas where I would end up. I suppose my overall conclusion, 'having opinions is cool', isn't going to set the world on fire. But having opinions IS cool, and the opportunity the internet affords us to be able to give an opinion and put it in the public square (in our case, a squalid and ill-attended public square) is awesome with a capital O. I guess on that note, Paul and I have been trying for ages to get people to write a 'guest post' on an issue of their choice, which we'll put up on the blog for you. If anyone is keen, it would be much appreciated, it would great to get a plurality of different opinions on this blog, rather than just my hatred of Michael Laws and Paul's hatred of hippies. Plus, it's better than studying.

Alex

(lol, Ron Paul)

The Case Against Death

2009-02-23T22:39:00.006+13:00

I've blogged before about how much of a prat Michael Laws is. And he really is a complete and total failure of an individual, a poisonous blight on New Zealand's journalistic traditions. In New Zealand's marketplace of ideas, he's the deep fried Cicada in our McDonald's french fries, turning the already putrid stinking remains of the discredited carcass that is right-wing populism into a monstrosity of bigoted psycho-babble that is morally repugnant to all but the most bigoted echelons of New Zealand 'society'. By comparison, Travis the Chimpanzee is an eloquent, principled and reasoned individual. I'm always disgusted that apparently rational, right-thinking people gave him a newspaper column, a talkback radio show and err...the mayoralty of Whanganui. But there is some good to come from the columns of the Whanganui Whanker, in that just when I think that he has hit rock bottom, he comes up with a way of smashing his way to new, previously unplumbed depths. Recently however, he may have come up with his 'Mona Lisa'.

It's called, 'So this is Justice', and it follows much of Laws's traditional formulae. (A spoonful of assertion of the inherent violence within Maoridom, stirred with 2 cups of advocating for forced sterlisation, with a pinch of 'all criminals were born evil and brown' for seasoning.) But this particular display of self-righteous petulance had an extra-special sweetener, in the form of Laws's new shibboleth, advocating the return of the death penalty (or in his words 'the ultimate retribution'). And what were his arguments in favour of the courts (and presumably juries) having the right to end lives? There were twofold, 1) THAT it's what the public wants, and 2) It's justice on the cheap. Both these arguments are laughable, but that shouldn't detract from their repugnance.

With response to his first argument,lets assume that the people really do overwhelmingly support the reintroduction of the death penalty. Although we should be no means accept this as true, Laws bases his evidence on the fact many people have rung up and expressed this view on his talkback radio show. While talkback radio is the last refuge of the lonely, bigoted and stupid, 'an eye for an eye' remains an instinctively understandable response to a gruesome and wanton destruction of an innocent person's life. But regardless of the level of popular support, populist appeals to the wisdom of the voting masses, aka 'The 'people' want it, so lets give it to them' is never a good basis by which to conduct policy. Of course, in any good system of governance the general will of the public should be a highly relevant factor, but the general whims of a populace that at most will have a read of couple of newspaper articles on an issue should never become the overriding consideration. Governments have a duty to create a case for a policy based on both political philosophy (what ought to be done) and a pragmatic assessment of the socio-economic conditions (what can be done), not enact the tyranny of the majority. Just because everyone thinks something is good, it doesn't neccessarily entail that that thing is good.

Laws's defence of the death penalty as the most fiscally prudent approach is not only bizzarre, its truly cuntactular. He's actually talking about ending someone's fucking life with the same matter of fact attitude delivered by people who think government ownership of rail networks is financially improper. Sure, the prison system may cost a tonne of money for a system of punishment that creates more redictivist offenders than it does morally-upright candidates for sainthood, but surely that's an argument against incarceration in favour of more rehabilitive approaches to justice, not an argument for the electric chair. We're talking about the right to life here, it transcends fiscal boundaries. An attempt to take away the right to life from anyone requires a better argument than 'it's cheap'. (As an aside, the endless appeals that would be required under a system of capital punishment would in all probability balloon the cost of the justice system, beyond that which currently exists)

In order to justify the reintroduction of the death penalty, Laws (or the 'Sensible' Sentencing Trust) has to justify why the state should be the ultimate arbiter of who deserves to live, and who deserves to die. And that, to my mind, is an insurmountable obstacle. We expect that the state should keep us safe, but the right to life is inviolate, and an appeal to the safety of the greater good cannot be a justification for the killing of the few in any liberal democracy. Neither, should the state be prepared to slake a public thirst for 'vengeance'. It is one of the great shames of our time that a rehabilitive approach to justice has been wholly abandoned in a favour of an all-out emphasis on the punitive aspects. ( I blame Dukkakis) This creates nothing beyond a sadistic watercooler-discussion of how long was 'criminal X's sentence'. The state should ensure that the mentally ill criminal recieves adequate treatment, and that there is an attempt to rehabiliate the sociopath, not just 'be seen to be doing justice' by locking that sociopath away and forgetting about them. Finally, pro-deather's should be prepared to defend their systems of capital punishment as foolproof. Any justice system places a high burden on the prosecution to ensure that innocent people are not deprived of any rights. However, errors remain and innocent people have been (wrongly) found guilty and (wrongly) deprived of their liberty. But it is a different and dangerous ball-game to wrongly deprive people of their life. Again this is an insurmountable obstactle, as a foolproof system is impossible.

There can be no case for the death penalty in a liberal democracy. In reaching this conclusion, I have no doubt that Laws (unto) himself would deride me as 'swingeing namby-pamby PC homo' who just 'doesn't get it'. And maybe I don't get it. Maybe I am putting too much faith in the powers of restorative justice. But I'd rather be an idealist than a murderer.

Alex

(Just realised when I finished writing this, that this was our 50th post. Yey, go us.)

Bowling for Zimbabwe

2009-02-20T09:29:00.004+13:00

If they were to hand out an Oscar for 'Worst Hell on Earth', Zimbabwe would surely be an unbeatable favourite to take the title. A crippling inflation rate in the billions has ensured every Zimbabwean is a 'Slumdog Millionaire', while a disastrous cholera epidemic has ensured the average life span in Zimbabwe is less than the running time of 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'. Years of political degradation on an unfathomable scale by Robert Mugabe, former hero of Zimbabwe's war for independance, have led to a phantom state where civil society has virtually ceased to exist. Worse, attempts by Zimbabweans to vote Mugabe's ZANU-PF party out of office last year in favour of Morgan Tsangavirai's Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), plunged the country to new horrific depths as ZANU-PF supporters raped and killed supporters of the MDC until Tsangavirai was forced to pull out of a run-off election. (A far better explanation, and comprehensive news updates can be found here. A rather desperate and comprehensive attempt at propaganda can be found here. ) Following on from Paul D's last (and excellent) post on the comparative crappiness of people's lives,its hard for me, a decadent New Zealander whose greatest worry for the day will be trying to remove a large raspberry cordial-induced stain from his favourite (pink) polo shirt, to even imagine the scale of Zimbabwe's suffering, and to be perfectly honest I'm quite pleased to be as far away from Harare as possible. But the Black Caps, New Zealand's cricket team, are due to tour Zimbabwe in August this year. And quite controversially, I think they should.

For a good, logical argument against the tour to Zimbabwe, the NZ Herald wrote a brilliant editorial. (For a bunch of nonsensical rubbish that makes this blog look like The Economist, check here.) But with respect to the Herald, their basic position can be summed up as 'Governments on principle should not interfere with private sporting bodies freedom to decide who, where and when to play BUT in this situation, anything less than a legislative ban on sporting teams playing Zimbabwe would be an endorsement of Mugabe's flouting of democratic principles.' That's wrong on both counts. Of course Government should intervene when a sporting body, or indeed any private body that claims, in its business affairs to represent New Zealand, begins relations with a body that is anathema to all that New Zealand stands for, and to have that relationship associated with brand New Zealand would severly undermine New Zealand's stance on an issue in the world. In the 1980's the Government should have refused to let New Zealand tour South Africa, or South Africa tour New Zealand, on the grounds that the policy of apartheid to was abhorrent to the ideals held by New Zealanders.

But Zimbabwe today is not the South Africa of yesteryear. In apartheid South Africa, coloured peoples were denied selection from sporting teams on the basis of their colour. An All Black test with South Africa, therefore became an implicit endorsement of an apartheid policy - sorta like saying ' We are aware that your selection policies, which stem from policies of your government unfairly discriminate on the basis of race, however we do not care, we shall play sport with you anyway.' (In the 1960's New Zealand was so keen for some racial sporting action that they agreed not to take Maori's over to South Africa with them.). But in Zimbabwe the situation is more akin to a team that just wants to play cricket, while the goverment stampedes over every conception of human rights in that team's wretched, wretched country. Mugabe's government does not ask for Zimbabwean cricket to practice any flagrant violations of human rights and democratic principles, circa South Africa.The people of Zimbabwe do not even support these human rights abuses, as was the case in South Africa where hard-line apartheid government were endorsed by the white minority in election after election. Zimbabweans attempted to vote Mugabe out, and were subjected to a horrific bout of violence and bloodshed. Mugabe retains the Zimbabwean presidency against the will of the Zimbabwean people.

These cricketers are just like any other legitimate business that has been caught up in one of the greatest humanitarian catastrofucks of our time, and shares no culpability for that mess. Zimbabwe is not akin to 1980's South Africa, it is more akin to modern day North Korea, or Fiji - countries that have been subjected to an anti-democratic takeover by despots of varying shades of wankiness. New Zealand has recently hosted international sporting tournaments where both North Korea and Fiji were in attendance, and the goverment stayed silent. Hell, the most consistent cricket team to New Zealand this decade has been the Sri Lankans, and their goverment is faced with mounting criticism over its heavy handed persecution of Tamil civilians in that country's bloody civil war. Furthermore, Zimbabwe has in recent days, made fragile gains toward a return to democracy that would be unfathomable in Kim Jong-Il's Korea. It is too soon to say whether the 'unity' government concocted last week between ZANU-PF and the MDC can bring Zimbabwe back to at least a shadow of her former glory, but signs are encouraging - such as the appointment of Tendai Biti to Minister of Finance, replacing Gideon Gono, a man whose only plan to curb inflation was to 'print more money'. But at the very least, democratic leaders around the world should applaud their efforts to try, not castigate them as pariahs.

The Black Caps should not play in front of Robert Mugabe, and it would be entirely appropriate for the players, and those who control the game in New Zealand, to issue strong criticisms of the ZANU- PF party, and try and attract attention to just how pitiful the life of the ordinary Zimbabwean has become. But to ban, by statutory law, a cricket tour to Zimbabwe would not be consistent with New Zealand's approach to 'sporting tours to countries that suck on the rights front'. Rather it would be a radical departure from principle. Furthermore, it would be a punishment not to Mugabe but to Zimbabwe cricket and the people of Zimbabwe, and would be a slap in the face to those in the Movement for Democratic Change that must constantly walk a tightrope between a ZANU-PF party that is willing to gun down its own citizens to remain in power and an international community that shuns and abhors any suggestion that ZANU-PF may be allowed to remain in power after clearly losing the election.

John Key, New Zealand's Prime Minister, recently stated that he was thinking of banning the tour with regards to 'health reasons', presumably the rampant cholera epidemic put players lives at risk. This was a pathetic fudge from a man who likes to say he can't remember if he was for or against the 1981 Springbok tour (yeah right John - this was a tour that generated such huge protests the army was ordered to fire on protestors if they got too close, and the final rugby test is remembered for Gary Knight, the All Black prop, being knocked to the ground by a bag of flour that had been dropped from a low flying aircraft). It's not about cholera, the Black Caps would not be spending their soujourn to Zimbabwe ekeing out a meager existence in cholera-friendly conditions like the vast majority of Zimbaweans. It's about whether the New Zealand government should be holding Prosper Utesya (Zimbawean captain, and one of the worst players ever to grace the game, check out his awful stats.) as a proxy for the sins of Mugabe. No, they shouldn't.

Alex.

The Comparatively Crapiness of Your Life

2009-02-15T12:46:00.003+13:00

"Today, my girlfriend dumped me proclaiming she wanted someone more like her "Edward". I asked her who Edward was. She held up a copy her "Twilight" book. She was talking about a fictional vampire. FML" (Noname, #9321, fmylife.com)

The quote above came from this real interesting website that lists 1-line anecdotes from people all over the world. These lil stories summarize some of the worst things that happen to them. While reading through them I laughed at some, sympathized at others, and recognized the few that had happen to me as well. Then it dawned on me: the ones I recognized I hadn't (for the most part) thought they were that bad. Does that mean that my life is worse than theirs? After all, what does it say about my life if crappy experience x happens to me and I'm like "whatever... gotta roll with the punches." while x happening to others makes them react like "that's the worst thing ever! I fucking hate my life... what's the opposite of lol?"

When you stop and think about it, if you have the ability to read this, your life is pretty sweet. Not only to do you have the resources to access the internet and the competence to find the best website out there, you also have the time to waste it reading this. I mean, in all likelihood you're not: in a refugee camp, a village without running water, or part of a band of gypsies. I feel safe in assuming you're part of the upper most privileged crust of the 6+ billion people on the planet. Even then, when we just look at those few of us in the western world, you're probably not below the poverty line (unless you're a student... but being below the poverty line and a student is really different than being below the poverty line and NOT being a student). Nor are you probably in prison. Really, if you're reading this, no matter what's wrong in your life, it's way way way better than most people on this lil blue dot of ours. Nevertheless, when shitty things happen to us, why to we feel and act as if the world is ending?

At least intuitively, I think there are 2 reasons why we have such reactions: (1) we fail to recognize the big picture; and, (2) we rate our successes and failures compared to those of the people around us. Regarding the former, I think it's understandable. It's hard to keep the big picture in mind. When some bimbo spills her cosmopolitan all over your new white Armani shirt, you're probably not gonna think "oh well, at least I have an Armani shirt, unlike those poor lil African kids." And you probably don't what to think that either. Every time you fail to finish eating your 21 oz. sirloin steak, and some snot nosed idealist pipes up "don't be wasteful, man! Don't you know people are starving all over the world, dude?", you just wanna punch 'em in the balls and reply "ya, but those hemp pants didn't save your balls, eh hippy?" Sure it sucks that the lives of most people in the world are worse than yours, but there's only so much you can do about it... or, rather, only so much you can be expected to do about it. Your life is sufficiently withdrawn from theirs that you're justified in not comparing yours to theirs.

The second reason hits closer to home, I think. We all have this kind of built in desire to compete with the Jones family next door. To have a prettier lawn, smarter kinds, or whatever. It's almost as if we judge how well we're doing in our life by comparing it to those around us. Which is understandable; we need to have some means of evaluating our own performance and this seems to be and easy and effective means. So it doesn't matter if your life could be a lot worse and still way better than the lives of impoverished farmers in China. But it does matter than Jimmy Jones just got a new iPhone and you can't afford one; or than Janet Jones just got engaged, while you just got dumped for the ... time. Contrasted with this benchmark, your life sucks. And I think this is a reasonable benchmark to use. Here there are attainable goals: if you work hard, you might also get an iPhone and married. This sort of benchmark is universal: When Sally, in the refugee camp, gets an extra bowl of rice she knows she's got it pretty sweet compared to the other refugees; it does her no good to realize that Jimmy in London got an iPhone.

So when you get a C+ in the Philosophy of Love and Sex at uni, while your friends all got A-, you should feel bad. Your life does suck. don't try to find solace in the fact that some people don't even have the opportunity to go to uni and learn about Love and Sex, that's irrelevant. 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.

Of Forgiveness and Happiness

2009-02-13T15:42:00.005+13:00

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” (Thomas S. Szasz)

Were someone to ask you if everyone deserves to be happy, I think your immediate answer would likely be “hells ya, bitch” unless you’re even more cynical than I. But I figure if we think about it for a minute, it becomes clear that everyone doesn’t deserve happiness. Or, at the very least, society doesn’t consider happiness to be an inalienable right. And I think the definitive case in point is life in prison. Jail ain’t suppose to be fun or make those who are there happy; that’s kinda the point. While I’m sure people in jail do experience happiness, part of the reason we put them there was to make them unhappy (and, sometimes, to protect others). But even jail and the legal system aside, I don’t think everyone deserves happiness; or at least not total happiness. It all depends on how you treat others. When you trespass against others (especially those you care about) you risk trespassing on your own happiness. Maybe this is purpose of guilt; a moral emotion for those who don’t deserve happiness.

So it turns out that everyone doesn’t deserve happiness. What about forgiveness? If you’ve wronged others, it seems as if being forgiven is essential to be able to get happiness out of your relationship with the person again. There’s heaps and heaps of new literature in philosophy on forgiveness; but, unfortunately, when I was exposed to it I was too busy daydreaming about rainbows and puppy dogs. (So if you wanna know what the learned people think about forgiveness, you’ll have to do the research yourself.) But my intuition is that everyone who has done something wrong doesn’t deserve to be forgiven; there are unforgivable sins. I’m not going to give examples of things people could do that might be too egregious to warrant forgiveness. While failing to give examples will make my job harder, I think we all consider different things unforgivable. I think it depends on the person and the situation. I hope that, for my purposes here, it’ll be sufficient to say that we all can think of wrongs that could be committed against us that, whatever they are, we wouldn’t be able to – or want to – forgive.

So when we refuse to forgive someone for something they did, what are we doing? Well, it seems to me that – if nothing else – we are defining the nature of the relationship between you and the wrongdoer as one where he/she cannot derive happiness from it; or one where you don’t want the wrongdoer to derive happiness (at least until forgiveness/amends has been made). To refuse (or be unable to) forgive is kinda like putting the wrongdoer in emotional jail when it comes to you. Sure the wrongdoer might still be able to derive happiness from you, but it will be overshadowed by the crime which hasn’t (and might not be) forgiven. More often than not, if not always, this means the nature of the relationship will altered. If you were friends, you might not be friends anymore. Or you might be not as close as before. If you were romantic partners, you might be no more than friends. Or nothing at all. I mean, refuse to forgive someone is to say something like “it’s not okay for you to get what you want from this relationship because of what you did to me; at least until you make amends and I forgive you”.

But when forgiveness isn’t a possibility, when faced with an unforgivable sin, can your relationship keep the status quo? (That is, how it was before you were wronged.) Hmm. Hard to say. If forgiveness is impossible, surely that fact will always loom in the background. Maybe at best you can get real close to how things were before; kind of like being on parole. But I’m unsure of even this. And it may be moot: even when forgiveness is granted, the relationship is fundamentally changed. To keep this jailhouse theme rolling, it might be akin to how people who served their time, reformed, and were released from jail are able to be normal upstanding citizens, but can never escape their perma-stamped ex-convict status (and its stigmas).

Don’t get me wrong; I’d love it everyone could be happy. But it just doesn’t seem like everyone deserves it. Which is unfortunate, but that’s the way life is. Someone might argue that, when forgiveness is genuinely sought (that is, when the wrongdoer does everything possible to correct or make up for the wrong), you’re obligated to give it. But I don’t know if that’s right – I’m not sure if forgiveness is something you’d ever be obligated to give someone. 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.

Amongst the Savages

2009-02-09T13:41:00.003+13:00

“personality goes a long way.” (Jules, Pulp Fiction)

So, I’m sitting here, trying to blog for my faithful-yet-non-existent readers when I should be doing something more productive. But it’s not going well. (Both being more productive and blogging.) It’s not going well because the sounds coming from out my window make me think I’m in downtown Baghdad. But don’t worry, I’m not in any danger. They’re just fireworks. Nevertheless, it’s distracting. And stupid. And I don’t get it.

What’s wrong with people? I mean, come on. People are dumb. People are irrational. Here I mean “people” as groups of individuals. From People we get mob mentality, which gives us riots and looting. People are strange when they come together and form large groups, and I’m not sure why it happens. People abandon almost all sense of personal responsibility when they become part of an ad hoc large group. If the group has one or some leaders, the individuals submit to the will of the leader(s). While the root causes for why it happens escape me, I guess the behaviour is understandable: individuals loving submitting to the authority of others; the Milgram experiments show that. But even without any real leadership, individuals submit… just generally, to the will of the group. I suppose this is harder to understand since there isn't a clear authority. And it's more dangerous since it's probably less predictable; these mobs can act more like a stampede of cows. Getting at why people act the way they do when part of a mob is problematic. I’m sure some academics from some field have worked on this, but I’m unfamiliar with it (if you know of any articles, share ‘em as I’d be keen to check ‘em out... I'd even be interested in any thoughts of your own that you might have).

But even if a large crowd doesn’t get out of control, crowds are still bad; or at least unpleasant (not nearly as awful as buses or eating, though). It's never fun being surrounded by so many people such that it’s hard to move or get to where I wanna go. Doubly so if those people are people you don't like, like communists, or smell bad. Nevertheless, though, there is an amazing palpable feeling that comes with being part of something where you share a experience with a group; at a concert, for instance. It can leave you with a feeling of being part of something more; which a lot of people, understandably, like. So large groups have the potential to be beneficial, but also the potential to go wrong... like after so many Canadian NHL games.

But what about individuals? Surely, if you take one person aside she’s likely able to act rationally. But even though most individuals are reasonable and responsible, some individuals like fireworks; and fireworks are stupid to the point of being irrational. Individually we like ridiculous things (fireworks being one of them (and if you were gonna comment that fireworks are “cool”, save it. They’re not. They’re just cutesy explosives detonated in the sky. Whoop-ti-do. Just another example of why you’re a savage amused by the simple things in life.)). But that’s okay. While I don’t really care for fireworks, I like other silly things. Most people have interests like that. And that’s good. Why? Because it means you’ve got personality. And personality goes a long way. Having unique interests make you interesting. Those plastic girls and douchey guys who only like the trendy things are empty on the inside. Which means they’re necessarily ugly on the inside too. If all the things you like coincide with the things most people like there’s something wrong with you. And this takes me back to people. If you don’t have any interests that make you unique, you’re just another boring face in the crowd. Just a part of the mob.

So what am I saying here? Well, for one, fireworks are stupid. And crowds are stupid, and unpleasant. Individuals aren't much better, unless they have interests. Even if those interests are stupid, like fireworks. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

Wear it their way?

2009-02-05T00:31:00.007+13:00

Every now and then an issue presents itself which is totally, completely, monumentally insignificant in the context of world history, but where the parties concerned are so enthusiastic about the principles of the thing they are fighting for that it appeals to my ornery and embittered heart. So this blog post is not, as I first intended it would be, a comment on the EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINETEEN BILLION DOLLAR stimulus package that Barack Obama and friends are trying to get passed in the US Congress. Therefore, it's not possessed with the title 'That Boehner sure don't stimulate MY package', which made me giggle for at my own peurile humour for a full thirty seconds. Instead, this post is gifted with easily the lamest title of my short blogging career, and is about two schoolkids that wouldn't get served at Burger King.

You can find the story by clicking on this link. Trust me, it's worth doing just for the sheer stupidity of the reader comments. But, if you can't be arsed or live in Somalia, Myanmar or South Epsom (and therefore have dial-up internets), then basically the story is about two 14 year-old kids who turned up to a Burger King in Christchurch after school. They were turned away because of a policy that banned people in school uniform (on the grounds that some children had been abusive, and thrown Coke at the store's employees). Denied their sacred inalienable right to Whoppery goodness, they complained to their mummies. Who then complained to the Human Rights Commission. Who then said it was discrimination.

While at first glance, this looks like a case of two fat housewives needing a break from their EastEnders marathon who decided to make life hell for a poor business that was just trying to protect its staff from racial abuse. But these women deserve to be applauded. A store, or any other place should not be able to deny service to a certain group of people, simply because members of that group have shown themselves to be more likely to engage in disruptive behaviour than others. Just because all coke-throwing racists in that Burger King have, so far, worn school uniform, it does not follow that all people wearing school uniform will throw coke and be racist in that Burger King. Essentially what a blanket ban does, is automatically presume that all members of that group are guilty, and denies them a service thats wrong.

Of course, the obvious argument against this is 'yeah, but if one group is more likely than others to commit crime, surely the business owner is just being pragmatic, and preventing damage, by excluding that group.' Pragmatic maybe, but woefully wrong-headed regardless. Imagine, if you will, the 'pragmatic' domestic airline in America that denies Muslims the right to fly on their airline on the grounds that 'All terrorists on domestic airlines this decade have been Muslims. Therefore, Muslims are more likely to engage in terrorist takeovers of domestic aircraft, so by excluding all Muslims from flying our airline will be safer.' I appreciate that I've made a bit of a leap in scale, from sticky little retards in Burger King being denied the right to childhood obesity, to a religion being placed on a no-fly zone. But I think its a logical 'next step', and it does show the ability for the reasoning exhibited by Burger King to have severe impacts on the freedoms innocent, morally forthright members of the community.

Burger King could have hauled the kid to a police station and charged him with the appropriate offence, be it property damage, disruption of a public place or whatever. Maybe the sight of one kid being punished will act as deterrant to other kids thinking of committing similar actions, while kids who would never consider pouring their drink over a racial minority can continue eating their shoestring fries in peace. Alternatively the Burger King could speak to the school, and demand that action is taken to educate children about appropriate behaviour in a Burger King. (They could for instance, use the Wurtilizer, or marvel at the James Dean memorabilia). This would obviously place a greater onus on the Burger King than simply enforcing a blanket ban on school uniforms. But while its hard, and we can sympathise with the poor business for having to go out of his way to discipline some punk kids, this is what liberty, and the principle of the presumption of innocence in a free, democratic society demands. It may seem trivial, but hey, its principled.

One final point. It's easy to defend the right of ordinary school-uniformed kids to go to Burger King, or the right of Muslims to fly. But the most interesting expression of this argument (and the one most difficult to defend) isn't in the field of burgers, or Muslims or planes (oh my) - its located on the gang patches of the Mongrel Mob and Black Power. It is true that many murder, rape, child abuse etc cases have had their roots in gang culture and gang rivalries. Does that, therefore justify a ban on the wearing of gang patches in public? I would argue, no. While I'm obviously disgusted by cases of murder, rape and child abuse, and share in the general public sentiment that the people that commit these animalistic acts should be bought to justice. But I dont think it follows that banning the signs and symbols surrounding gangs will make a difference. Laws exist to deal with the criminal offending, while a surge in the popularity of gangs could be combated with a wide-spread strategy to deal with the systemic poverty that exists in areas where gangs are most popular. Targeting the dress code of a group, rather than the behaviour of some of its members is backward-looking and doomed to failure.

As I said earlier, the women that brought this case to the Human Rights Commission deserve to be applauded for highlighting the fact that membership of a group, and dress code within that group, cannot be grounds for discrimination - even if that group has shown a propensity for anti-social behaviour. I just wonder if those women would have fought the case with the same fervour if it had have been someone elses kid, decked out in full gang regalia.

Alex

Why Blog?

2009-01-30T12:52:00.004+13:00

“I've always viewed those that keep solid, regularly updated blogs with an equal mixture of admiration and disdain.” (Alex Nelder, AWordOnFailure)

Ages ago, back when Alex and I thought blogging would be “cool” and “fun”, Alex wrote the first post for our blog. It was a kind of defense of blogging; an explanation of why blogs are worthwhile. While I’m typically not a critical person, I must say that that post of his left me puzzled. And, after thinking about it for a while, forgetting it, remembering it, thinking about it some more, and finally having a chance to write out my thoughts, I’ve decided to try and explain why blogs are bad. I think blogging to stupid; there are a number of problems with it.

Probably the most pressing problem with blogging is the threat to legitimate authorship and journalism. A blog is kinda like a mic; it’s a way to get your ideas out there; to be heard. Every time you write a post, blogspot screams “Congratulations! Your post has been successfully published!” While this isn't "real" publication, your views are still out there for all to see in a real way. In fact, things on the internet are vastly more accessible than traditional/legitimate forms of publication. This isn't so much a problem for Alex or I, since our blog doesn't get the same number of comments as The itty bitty kitty committee blog, but it's a danger for the public and the marketplace of ideas when stupid people, bigots, neophytes, and the like decide to blog. Some ideas don’t deserve to stand on the soapbox that is the internet. But bad blogs are out there, acting as a way for bad ideas and opinions to spread like an STI through a college dorm. People get onto their blog and spout ideas that are dumb or just plain wrong; the absence of checks and balances allows them to act as an authority on topics they aren't. Blogs promote the mantra that everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it – which is wrong; only experts and smart people are entitled to their opinions. When you boil it down, blogs are the FOX News of the internet: a way for "information" to get transmitted, when it really shouldn't.

And there's another, more personal, danger that comes with blogging: being misinterpreted. Again, because what you say is "published" on the omni-present interweb it's accessible to (virtually) everyone. And because we all aren’t as clear writers as Alex, if you're unclear in what you say people might take it the wrong way. Here, then, people mistake your views for something that they're not. Another way you can be misinterpreted is why you blog. Your motivation can be, a lot of the time, unclear. I guess this is a risk you take when you blog, but it's never that much fun to reap the consequences of being attributed views that you don't have. Comments are nice, I suppose, because they enable a discussion through which you can get at your underlying considerations… but comments aren’t mandatory; presumptive reactions are much easier.

More superficially, blogging isn't trendy anymore. It's like... something that's used to be new and sheik but now something "serious" people leave to 14 year olds and net-obsessed geeks. Blogging has gone from a new way to communicate to just another away to spew verbal puke. Not that I'm a slave to trends, but blogging now lacks the appeal that once made it popular. There are so many blogs out there that's someone worthwhile isn't really capable of finding the blog they'd be best reading. Soo many blogs are just online diaries… ours is plainly not; but this remains an inescapable stigma. More than anything else, blogs now seems to be mainly a way to communicate with friends and random from the net. Don’t get me wrong, that's okay. But if that's all I'm gonna get outta it, I might as well just talk to friends and strangers on the street than put in the effort of blogging.

So, when people ask me "why do you blog?" (or, rather, what I'd imagine they'd ask if they cared when they I mention that I blog), my answer is: “I dunno; maybe I shouldn't”. Does that mean that my continuance to blog makes me some kind of hypocrite or whatever? I don’t think so, instead I’d say it means that my relationship with blogs in akin to David Suzuki’s with TV: fighting to convince others of the legitimacy of my views via the medium I hate. 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.

So...when CAN the Red Man get ahead, man?

2009-01-25T22:13:00.006+13:00

I realise that people who read 'A Word on Failure' are not on the cutting edge of modern society. I know this because you read 'A Word on Failure', when all the cool kids are spending their precious net-reading time dissecting The Standard, The Beastly Huffington, or looking up funny clips on Youtube. I mean, Paul and I haven't even worked out how to upload photos yet! So, I could forgive you, long-suffering readers of an inferior blog, if you had been SO out of touch with society, that you hadn't caught up with the news recently. If you'd missed for example, that a black guy is now President of the United States of America.

In a comically bad life decision, considering I had work and class the next day, I stayed awake the whole night waiting for the Obama Inauguration speech. (In NZ, we're 18 hours behind Barackington DC, so midday there was 6am there). I even bought pretzels and Budweiser. So, by the time the speech ACTUALLY arrived (after hours and hours of mindless drivel, as the pundocracy tried to stretch coverage of the President-Elect's front-door out for a few hours), I had hyped it up to such an unreasonable extent I expected the poetry within Obama's prose to melt my jaded heart, leading me to sing the praises of YesweCanism from the pews of Baracktholic Church, and immediately apply for a green card.

For four entirely unrelated and downright curmudgeonly reasons, I was dissapointed.

The first was a sense of dissapointment in myself. The reason I ended up tossing my 'McCain 08' badge in the (non-recyclable) trash can was because Obama's whole campaign rhetoric boiled down to this; you couldnt rely on Washington (insert the name of your own country's ineffectual capital here) to tackle the planet-saving tasks of climate change reduction, giving everyone a fair and decent go in life, and mending an economy broken by a philosophy of greed - EVERYONE needed to act together to solve them. Thats why his slogan was 'Yes WE can' and 'WE are the one's WE'VE been waiting for' - NOT 'With my help, your self-destructive behaviour will have no negative harms!'. But when I watched Obama's speech I waited for him to reassure me, give me some lofty rhetoric that would convince me that everything was going to be all right, that the recession wasn't gonna hurt me. I waited for the lofty rhetoric that would bring me to tears. And when it didnt come, when it was replaced with somber prose about the magnitude of the challenges facing the West, and the need for individuals to shoulder a collective burden, I felt cheated. Even though that was what Obama had promised to do the whole time.

My second gripe was with the steady stream of moonbat political pundits that proclaimed throughout the day that this was the 'victory of the civil rights movement'. What a bunch of crap. Blacks still occupy the lowest rungs of the education and health ladders, and are grossly overrepresented and prison and unemployment statistics. Obama (and Condi, and Colin and Tony Dungy) represent deviations from a general statistic, outliers if you will. They are black people that, through dint of their exceptional ability were able to rise to the top and overcome MORE barriers than would have been faced by a white candidate in that same position. To say that Obama's ascent to the presidency is proof that equality now reins in America, and black people can no longer claim their colour as an excuse (thankyou, The Economist, for that little piece of latent racism) is deeply offensive to those who fought so hard for black civil rights. Chris Rock is right, there will be true equality in America when there is a Black president as dumb as George Bush.

H'okay, Gripe number three. This concerns the infuriating tendency of liberal American speechmakers, and Obama in particular to make dovish, cooing noises about an America that honours diversity and a plurality of values AND then the next sentence, to make an impassioned appeal to the power of an almighty Christian god to bless America, and bless American exceptionalism. No longer can America have their sunday school cake and eat it. The Obama administration must choose between referencing the Christian God as America's very own saviour and protector, and sticking the middle finger at....errr, any one else in the world whose value system doesnt match America's OR it can prove that it gives a damn about diversity, and the legitimacy of a non Christian belief framework. I know which one I'd prefer.

Finally, and this was something I didnt even notice until a friend pointed it out, but where were the Native Americans in Obama's speech? Even we evoked the metaphor of the first settlers to America (the Pilgrims, duhhh), the Native Americans were conspicuously absent. America's indigenous peoples constantly appear WAY down the list of government priorities, which is a travesty for the advancement of indigineous peoples everywhere. The plight of many Native Americans is truly dire, employment on some reservations hits 77%, drug use is rampant and effective programmes for community renewal are completely non-existent. Worse still, many fundamental cornerstones of the American legal system are wholly inadequate in accounting for the very real, cultural and religious norms of the Native American people. The first Amendment, for example, which forbids the establishment of a state-owned religion, does not cater for the spiritual, community and location-based practices of the Native Americans, only for the individual, scripture-based doctrines of the Abrahamic faiths (Christianity and shit, yo). So, the first amendment has been used to justify the bulldozing of Native American burial sites, and to fire Native American employees who engage in the cultural practice of peyote. And yet, despite these gross abuses of the rights of the first peoples, that are afforded no airtime in one of the most important speeches by a American leader in its history.

Make no mistake, I like Obama, and I desperately want him and his presidency to succeed. But America has been presented with a unique chance for renewal, and a unique chance to look at a comprehensive overhaul of its political culture. To give a fuck about the Native Americans. To realise diversity exists, and its sexy. To realise that America has only taken one step forward on the path to equality, not teleported to the finish line. And to realise that individuals cannot free-ride on other peoples good behaviour, we must all be responsible for bringing er, change we can believe in.

If Obama can do all these things, Im booking a ticket to South Dakota, and carving his face into Mt Rushmore. If he shies away from major change....well, then he's Bill Clinton.

Alex.

The Prudence of Self-Love

2009-01-23T23:37:00.003+13:00

“Good nature without prudence, is foolishness.” (unknown)

Say you’re in a relationship; a romantic relationship, that is. And, say, you’ve had enough; you’re ready to cut ‘em loose. But not because your partner drives you nuts or you can’t stand to look at ‘em. I’m not talking about cases that severe. What I’m talking about are instances where you just aren’t really motivated to stay romantically involved; you’ve just lost interest. In these cases, should you end it? Or, keep ‘em around until you find someone better (or until you can’t stand to look at ‘em anymore)??

On the one hand, it seems that, if you feel that way, you oughtta just cut ‘em loose. It doesn’t really seem “fair” to string ‘em along if you don’t see a future with your partner and aren’t really motivated to be with ‘em. Some (crazy) idealists might even go so far as to say that you have an obligation to be forthright with your partner about this kinda thing.

But, on the other hand, you aren’t really worse off by keep ‘em around. In fact, you might be better off. Here you’ve got someone (at least marginally) committed to you. You might even be in a relationship where you get to have sex. (Yay!) Unless you have a positive reason to stop spending time with your partner (which isn’t the case here), you might as well keep ‘em around until you have a reason not to. It’s in your best interest to have someone to sex up, rather than having to sex yourself up until you find someone else, right? So, you should serve your own best interest by keeping 'em around until you have more of a reason to end it.

But this argument is, of course, a prudential one. (While the first one was more of an ethical one.) But the prudential argument is certainly true: it is in your (selfish) best interest to do what’s best for you. Here, it’s the case that it’s in your best interest to stay in a relationship you aren’t actively interested in being in; you just don’t have positive argument to get out of it… expect the ethical one above. But is that enough? Should you look out for yourself or do what's “right”?

That argument for why you should end the relationship is focused on what’s in your partner’s best interest (rather than yours). If it’s true that it’s in his/her best interest to “not get strung along by some jerk”, then this argument entails that you've got an obligation to end it. But what’s interesting here is that it’s unclear whose interests you should be looking out for. Yours? Or your partner’s? Why should you give any consideration to your partner’s interests? After all, in all likelihood, after the relationship does end you won’t see ‘em again. And, in all likelihood, at that point your partner probably won’t place a high importance on your interests. By placating your partner's interests, you aren't satisfying yours; you'd be working against yourself. And that's jsut crazy, right?

You might be thinking, at this point, that you should just be honest and tell your partner: “Look, I’m not happy in this relationship. So we can either end it, you can change to make me happy, or we can modify it to a ‘fuck buddies’ type thing until one of us finds someone new… whatdaya say?” Maybe I’m out of touch with society, but I’ll go out on a limb and say that, in all likelihood, the answer will be “it’s over ya jerk.” And if that turns out to happen you haven’t served your best interests. (Since you'd probably then be sexless until you manage to find someone new willing to go down on you.) So we're back to square one. But being open like this is fair, right? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily what you should do. Should we put a greater importance on what's fair or morally right than what's in our own individual self interest? (This is my whole point people.)

I went through this whole discourse to frame my key question de jour: At what point should you stop putting other people’s interests ahead of your own? I’m no ethicist, but maybe this is a case which highlights the limits of morality. Surely there's a limit to the ethical standards to which we should be held. After all ethics, to be meaningful, has to be rational; and it can’t always be rational to put the interests of others before your own. 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.

Burning Bush.

2009-01-19T22:32:00.006+13:00

(Everyone else, from Fareed Zakaria to Bono, gets to pass some sort of verdict on the last 8 years of President Bush, extolling his vices and cursing his virtues. I realise, therefore, that to write ANOTHER 'Bush legacy' post is an idea that's as contrived as the High School Musical franchise. However, I never met a bandwagon I didn't like and I figure whats good enough for Bono is good enough for Nelder. So here it is, a 'Bush legacy' post. Originality is for sissies.)

I often LOL at the adjectives that have been attached to famous leaders throughout history. Sometimes, the adjectives are pretty dull, and don't really reflect that leader's accomplishments, or place in history. Alexander of Macedon, the great Greek king who smashed the Persians and tripled the size of Greece, had to make do with being called Alexander 'the Great', which sounds like he won first prize in a poetry contest. Alexander the Totally Bad-ass would have been far more sufficient. At the other end, we have Vlad III, the blood-thirsty tyrant of 15th century Romania and later the inspiration for Bram Stoker's Dracula. He became remembered as Vlad the Impaler, a name so infinitely cool that if you didn't know better you'd think he was a villian in a Tarantino film. Even some fictional characters have inherited this NAME + DESCRIPTION tradition, sometimes for better....and sometimes for worse.

Where am I going with this? Well, besides from showing off my knowledge of Romanian history, I want to pose a question. In 100 years time, when A Word on Failure is being updated by my great grandchild (Alexandra Hugochavez Nelder-Putin), I wonder what adjective will be attributed to the US of A's outgoing Presidunce, George Walker Bush?

Hopefully, history still remembers him as Bush the Failure. A man whose policies have led to the complete and total decimation of American prestige and respect on the global, left the United States embroiled in two wars that have been so badly mishandled that thousands of American, Iraqi and Afghani lives and trillions of dollars have been wasted, and whose reckless handling of the economy left the US and the rest of the world hurtling towards a recessionary fuckfest deserves no less.

There have been recent attempts to exonerate him for his short-comings, portray him as a man whose presidency and vision for America was sidelined by the 9/11 attacks, and that the worst excesses of the Bush Administration (the PATRIOT ACT, the Guantanamoification of prisoners of war, the attempts to snatch more power for the executive branch of government) were all necessary evils in the pursuit of national security. These attempts are not only weak, they are an affront to the memory of those killed both in the World Trade Center attacks, and in the subsequent 'War on Terror'. One of the Bush Administration officials (Rumsfeld?) once declared they were fighting an enemy that didn't play by the rules ,and so to obey the normal rules of conventional warfare (like the Geneva convention) would be like America fighting with one hand tied behind its back. But the fact it played by rules was one of the things that made America, and American democracy great, and by showing an almost carefree attitude to trampling over the rule of law, the seperation of powers and a plethora of civil liberties Bush degraded and corrupted the American ideal beyond recognition. Not only that, but the ham-fisted way that the Bush administration handled the peace in both post-Saddam Iraq and post-Taleban Afghanistan, was a show of supreme arrogance, and it can only be hoped that the thousands of extra lives lost haunt Bush to his grave.

But while Bush does not deserve to be exonerated for his incompetence, neither should he be villified. Among the far-flung corners of the left, Bush will be remembered as the war-mongering criminal who invaded Iraq to get his grubby hands on some sweet Middle Eastern crude oil. Or as the rich white prick who didnt give a flying fuck as hundreds of thousands of black people drowned in the floodwaters of New Orleans. But this is wrong. Bush does not deserve to be remembered as evil. He does deserve, however to be remembered as incredibly stupid. And maybe, a little too trusting.

I have defended the Bush Doctrine (the right to a pre-emptive strike against a nation before it attacks you) in a previous post. But Bush showed an almost eager-to-please willingness to trust the intelligence, uncritically accepting the vital evidence he used to make the case for war, rather than demanding to know the sources. In Hurricane Katrina, his administration's effectiveness was shredded for two reasons - the gutting of the civil defence budget on idealogical 'private-sector' grounds, and Bush's blind faith in his officials to do the job without him needing to be the overbearing 'Big Brother'-type boss. The economic crisis was a result of Bush's failure to really grapple with the issue, instead outlining some vague idealogical agenda for the economy (regulation bad, innovation good) and placing it the trust of free-market idealogues, with no balancing influence.

But if you really break his character down, the two most defining attributes of Bush are this. One, Having trust in the ability of the people he appointed to do a job and two, having strong philosophical groundings. And when you think about it, those aren't exactly bad characteristics to have. It just turned out that the former alcoholic with a tendency to get his words hopelessly muddled who looked hopelessly out of his depth when he debated Al Gore in 2000 WAS in fact hopelessly out of his depth. But not evil, just hopeless.

So, how should history remember Bush? Bush the Useless, definitely - maybe even as Bush the Worst.

But maybe also.....as George the Well-Intentioned.

Alex

They Shouldn’t Call it “Pop Music”, They Call it “Poop Music”

2009-01-17T22:18:00.003+13:00

“Do I listen to pop music because I'm miserable or am I miserable because listen to pop music?” (John Cusack)

Back in tha day there was a backlash against “that hot new sound”: rap music. A flurry or columnists, journalist, politicians, concerned citizens, and future bloggers (read: puritanical uptight sissies) raised a stink. They complained about obscene lyrics, how you couldn’t understand what was being said or what it meant, and the general offensive tone and beat of the music itself. A similar sort of backlash struck the emerging heavy mental scene as well. Both musical styles, more or less, successfully defended themselves in the court of public opinion, growing in popularity and legitimacy as musical styles with genuine talent.

But there still exists offensive music that shouldn't be allowed. While these songs might sound like rap, metal, or whatever, they are, really, instances of “pop music”. They’re typically boo-hissed by genuine fans of music. Here I wanna explain why, despite how you feel about gangsta rap (or other “offensive” music), the real offensive music is valueless pop music.

First off, I wanna differentiate between “pop music” and “popular music”. The latter is music that becomes popular in virtue of its own goodness; the former is thrust in with popular music despite not gaining notoriety of its quality. Pop music, instead, is designed and promoted as that which is (or, according to some, should be) popular. Here I’m only arguing against “pop music”. (“Popular music” is okay.)

While pop music got started back with, I dunno, the Monkees, it seems that pop music has exploded in the last decade or two: It has been growing in presences and "legitimacy" and there’s now a constant influx of new “artist”; from Brittney Spears, to Lady Gaga. These pop artists are often at the fringes of legitimate musical styles; they aren't really rap, metal, or whatever simpliciter. Instead they're bastardized creations made by hacks that are pushed and promoted by record labels. And there are instances from all kinds of music genres: the Theory of A Deadman types representing Rock’n’Roll; the Chingy types representing Rap; the Aqua types representing Electronica; and the Ashlee Simpson types representing…. I don’t even know what. A lot of these people don’t write their own music, or do any kind of performing other than singing (or, I should say, lip syncing; see Simpson link). Their tunes are manufactured and polished by producers working behind the scenes; working not for the art of it, but to fabricate the next “hit” to sell and make another cool million bucks. These crappy musical products are designed to be (one way or another) attention getting. It’s superficial and “soulless”. This is a case-in-point of where capitalism and Big Business have tainted the arts and our culture.

So why hasn’t “pop music” faced the same persecution as other kinds of contemporary music? Anyone that’s not a 14 year old girl and has an I.Q. over 40 can’t deny that pop music has no redeeming qualities. I mean, come on, it’s obviously inherently crap. Sure, a lot of it might not be offensive in the same say Metal and Rap was accused of being offensive. But pop music is offensive in its shittyness and fakeness (which, perhaps, is such a subversive kind of offensiveness that it gets missed; which would make it a more dangerous kind of offensiveness). It’s overly commercialized nature certainly doesn’t help it. By tolerating pop music we’re allowing the record industry to dictate to us what’s “cool” and what we should listen to; by tolerating it, we’re acting like sheep.

But let’s face it, we like pop music (even though we’d never admit it). It’s catchy. And a lot of it just somehow make you wanna dance. I mean, I can dance like John Travolta, but I hate to do it. Nevertheless, a lot of pop music just makes me wanna get out there and crunk up a storm. Does this redeem it? Not at all. Despite the superficial attractiveness some pop music might be conceded as having, its other detrimental qualities surely trump that and make it frustratingly objectionable. 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.

Why we suck : The failure of NZ National Identity - Part Two

2009-01-14T07:56:00.003+13:00

Here it is, Part 2 of my two part diatribe on New Zealand nationalism. As I mentioned in my previous post, Its a rehash of an essay I wrote for university, which is why the tone is so formal (and some would say, dreary). I've sprinkled it with italicised commentary, in part to make it more interesting, and in other part to try and cover up the gross logical inconsistences that developed towards the end of this essay, which I admit was written in a mad panic the night before it was due. I'll be back to writing more flippant, less essayish peices next time. After all....Its nearly inaguration day, baby!

In my last post, I talked ad nauseum about civic nationalism, that’s the idea that nationalism gets invented by symbols and traditions. As I mentioned in that post, civic nationalism is my favourite, its intellectually satisfying and doesn’t rely on some wackjob assumptions about people developing a shared sense of togetherness at some point in the distant past, probably when they had to join a team to fight off dinosaurs. But....then I worked out I could make some points better if I pretended I like the theories of ethnic nationalism or cultural nationalism. So, in a victory for quasi-academic flip-floppery, I converted. Ethnic/Cultural Nationalism 4 lyf!

Anthony Smith suggests that nations arise out of close ethnic ties; that core networks of culture and language must form the building blocks of any national identity, ahead of the national symbols and stories beloved by the civic nationalist (which I talked about in my previous post, to great acclaim and the applause of thousands) . To claim that New Zealand has a basis in ethnic nationalism would be to claim that New Zealanders are rooted in a historical and cultural community that exists independently of rituals and symbols, such as the anthem and the flag. But a sense of value in a ‘New Zealand culture’ is superficial at best. The OE (Overseas Experience) pilgrimage to Europe undertaken by young New Zealanders is seen as a chance to be imbued with a deeper understanding of their cultural roots. Since the early days of colonisation, New Zealand has been derided as a cultural backwater, devoid of intellectual tradition and a shared philosophical bond among citizens. Throughout the 1970’s the closest embodiment of the ethnic New Zealander was the booze-soaked, anti-intellectual caricatures of Lynn of Tawa and Fred Dagg. (I wonder if this was the first and only time in history that a supposedly academic essay referenced the vile Ginette McDonald). Arguably, this situation has now improved a deeper appreciation of New Zealand’s local entertainment industry, literature and academia now exists. (ref: Game of Two Halves) But the ethnic nationalist must still struggle to fashion a deep-rooted historical bond amongst a people who remain remarkably derisive of their own history.

This idea segues into the starkest challenge to the expression and mobilization of nationalism in New Zealand. Until now I have discussed nationalism with an explicit focus on the culture and symbols of European, or Pakeha New Zealanders; the descendants of colonisers. This is deliberate, as a nationalist discourse in New Zealand often fails to account for the cultural claims of the indigenous Maori community. (Oooo...here comes the controversy)

To try and reconcile Maori ideals of sovereignty with the justification for the sovereign nation that is espoused by the principle of self-determination is difficult. Maori society rests on the principle of a collective ownership between the Maori community and the land. It would have been inconceivable for traditional Maori conceptualize New Zealand in terms of the principle of self-determination, which is built on the Lockeian construct of obtaining ownership and mastery of a land's resources by dint of your efforts in cultivating the land. However, this cannot be allowed to detract from the legitimacy of Maori claims to New Zealand territory. Will Kymlicka (this poor guy would have got sooo beaten up at my high school with a last name like this) determines nationalism in relation to distinct cultures. For Kymlicka, a nation is defined by its culture, with the state inherently favouring a certain distinct cultural tradition. He argues that in settler societies we can distinguish the nationhood claims of immigrants, who in choosing to emigrate have forgone the right to belong to a nation based upon their original culture, and indigenous communities, who have deep cultural, spiritual and historical links to a territory and who were involuntarily incorporated into settler-societies via conquest or colonisation. He argues that these groups are worthy of the status of nation and some form of self-determination over a given territory as a result. (in other words, its more legitimate for Tame Iti to claim Maori sovereignty over Tuhoe, than it would be for Pansy Wong to claim sovereignty over Howick)

Settler-societies have been reluctant to consider the self-determination claims of indigenous national minorities, often arguing that because they were immigrant nations themselves they had no indigenous population. However there has been a major awakening among settler-societies in recent years in recognizing indigenous peoples as peoples with cultures ‘different from, but not inferior to their own’, and recognizing past injustices. The Australian nation-state, built on dispossession of Aboriginal peoples, has felt increasingly pressured to make amends for its violent colonial past (and the Lost Generation, and the Extermination of every single Aboriginal Tasmanian, and the White Australia Policy, and Baz fucking Lurhmann). The result for Australia, on display during 2008’s ‘Sorry Day’, is a nationalism that is less triumphant, and more reflective, mournful and based on reparation and reconciliation. (In truth, that’s a lie. Australians, on balance, remain arrogant self-righteous prats. But my lecturer was Australian, and I am not above self-censorship of the truth in pursuit of a higher grade...)

To its discredit, Kymlicka’s cultural nationalist model has surprisingly little relevance in a New Zealand context. A central tenet of New Zealand nationalism, used as a major drawcard in the international community, is New Zealand’s ‘racial inclusiveness’. New Zealanders are proud of the haka performed before the start of an All Black test match, and official meetings begin with the traditional Maori powhiri. (again, I’m lying. Most NZ Europeans think the powhiri is a waste of time, and could easily be replaced with a handshake and a smile. But, I couldn’t make the Haka my only example of ‘Stuff White People like’, and by this stage it was 3 in the morning and I was running out of brain). While this is a positive step in fostering cultural awareness, it is no substitute for legitimate self-determination. However for many New Zealanders, tacit approval for selected Maori rituals within an Anglo-centric framework as seen as the high-water mark for the Maori role in New Zealand national identity, not viewed as a barely acceptable minimum.

Intense divisions have erupted in New Zealand society concerning Maori-Pakeha relations. The Foreshore and Seabed controversy in 2004 saw Maori claims under the Treaty of Waitangi clash with the idea that ‘a holiday at the beach’ was an integral part of the New Zealand lifestyle that was under threat as a result of Maori ‘special rights’. Likewise the Maori-specific seats in the New Zealand Parliament are seen as a legal sanctioning of an unfairly separatist party found on illegitimate claims of ethnicity and not as they should be, as the only avenue for actual self-determined representation available to Maori in New Zealand. (In these two sentences I make more value judgements than Jerry Falwell did in his whole life. I’m happy to defend them, should any one wish to challenge my ‘limp-wristed hand-wringing PC-view’) These are just examples of a wider clash of principles between indigenous Maori and a settler society, tentatively forging a new identity for itself. As I have shown throughout my essay, this ‘Kiwi’ culture is the child of confused and contradictory expressions of civic nationalism, and the slow erosion of New Zealanders ethnic ties to the origin countries of their ancestors. Regardless of its foundations however, a recognition of the Crowns obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi to strengthen Maori culture is often seen as a direct weakening of this idea of ‘being Kiwi.’ ( I sort of gave up here, and introduced the term Kiwi without fully defining it. But think of ‘Kiwi’ in terms of stuff like L&P, sauce in a tomato shaped bottle and other kitchsy stuff like that. To be a Kiwi, it must be necessary that you support the All Blacks, drink a dozen Steinlager, and beat up the successful kid. One day I will write a post that compares the McDonalds Kiwiburger to Satan. Then you’ll see what I mean.)

This essay has offered an overtly negative assessment of the state of New Zealand nationalism. Its civic nationalism fails to define a set of national symbols and stories that promote a logical clear structure for an imagined community; its ethnic nationalism is based on a historical bond of cringing over New Zealand culture and a cultural nationalism where Maori and Pakeha remain ideological poles apart. But despite my pessimistic tone, there remains cause for optimism. There is, has always been, and will continue to be loyalty to the idea of ‘New Zealand’. (Hardly optimistic, its kinda like saying to the kid who got bullied at school ‘well, at least those bullies aren’t calling the mere fact of your existence into question’) A communal sense of pride has always been felt by New Zealanders in the achievements of its people on the world stage. (And a communal sense of ‘lets-beat-the-wife’ during All Black World Cup fails) And in the vast majority of cases, Maori-Pakeha tension is not based on racism, but on an awkward misunderstanding of values. The underlying principle of the emerging idea of ‘Kiwi’ is to be seen as good-hearted, practical, commonsensical and tolerant. (This was a fucking cop-out, show me a person who wants to be seen as bad-hearted or intolerant. The whole problem with the idea of Kiwi-ness is that it claims that New Zealanders that aren’t singing from the Gospel according to Murray Mexted, going to the beach, wearing jandals and eating hot chips in white bread aren’t really NZ’rs at all. It’s inherently intolerant. I have no idea why I wrote that sentence in my essay. It makes no sense, and undermines my entire argument. I blame it on a second class education in the NZ public schools system.) There remains a continuing willingness by both Maori and the descendants of colonisers to work together. New Zealand is a nation facing serious questions about where it has come from and where it is going. Happily, these are questions that New Zealand’s national spirit has the strength to confront and answer. And when they are confronted, the bonds of New Zealand nationhood can only grow stronger. (and they shall sing from the heavens, HALLELUJAH!)

Alex

Why we suck : The failure of NZ National Identity - Part One

2009-01-12T00:41:00.007+13:00

H'okay, the four people that regularly read this blog will notice that the style of this post is radically different from most of the stuff I write. There are a lot of polysyllabic adjectives, and a dearth of LOLs. This doesn't mean that I've embarked on a mid-blog crisis and am desperate for respectability - I abandoned that quest around the time I started babbling about the morality of eating kittens. On the contrary, I've actually cheated in writing this blog post, and tried to update an essay I wrote last year on the state of nationalism in New Zealand. I was going to save it for Waitangi Day, but it seems kinda topical at the moment - not only is it one year to the day since the death of Sir Edmund Hillary, the finest beekeeper ever to grace a banknote, but I also had a really really really really long chat with a couple of Americans about national identity in the US and NZ, and I wanted to hear other peoples opinions on the topic generally. So...I apologise for the length, and some of the longwinded wank that it is a signature of the AlexAcademicEssay, but I've tried to make it more suitable for blog form AND split it into 2 parts to make it easier - the first part on AngloSaxon Identity and the 2nd on the conflict between this and Maoridom. As usual, I'd love to hear what you think, even if what you think involves the words 'talentless' and 'hack' in the same sentence.

Alex

New Zealand nationalism is a construct built upon defective foundations . (Apparently in an academic essay, just writing ‘New Zealander’s, on balance, suck’ would not have been kosher. ) Loyalty to the NZ state exists, of course, but the creation of a stronger sense of nationalism (like the salute-the-flag OnenationunderGodism of the US of A) is undermined by two significant barriers. Firstly, New Zealand’s short history. New Zealanders remain divided on the whether their country is an antipodean offshoot of Britain, or a vibrant South Pacific nation assertively flaunting its Anglo-Oceanic identity. Viewing New Zealand from the perspective of a civic nationalist, the conclusion is a people suffering fundamental disagreement over symbolism; the flag is seen by many as an unloved relic of an increasingly irrelevant past and many of the national symbols and stories have two inherently contradictory meanings. But even if we adopt the lens of an ethnic or a cultural nationalist we see that New Zealand is limited by a cultural cringe and an implicit rejection by the New Zealand people of the moral worth of their own brand of nationalism. Secondly , and more controversial (and the stuff that you will have to wait for my NEXT post to read) has been the development of a populist ‘Kiwi’ nationalism, which fails to recognise legitimate Maori claims to self-determination, or even attempt to understand the Maori conception of national identity. While New Zealand’s national image overseas projects a racially harmonious New Zealand, it is a fiction. The few rituals and customs that are associated with Maori have been carefully cultivated to give a different meaning in a wider New Zealand context than their meaning in Maori culture. In addition, race relations issues have in recent years provided a major test for New Zealand, as the descendants of colonisers are unable to reconcile their idea of ‘being Kiwi’ with Maori claims.

So what exactly is this concept of nationalism that I plan to bang on about ad nausem throughout this series of posts. I’ll start, as any aspiring civic nationalist would with Benedict Anderson’s famous definition of a nation as an ‘imagined political community that is inherently limited or sovereign.’ OBVIOUSLY, New Zealand falls within this definition. New Zealanders do feel innately connected (that’s the imagined part) to others who associate in some way with the geographical spread of islands that constitute New Zealand (limited), and legitimize a national government that purports to exercise, in their name, sovereign jurisdiction over this territorial space (sovereign!). New Zealanders feel a duty towards other (perceived) New Zealanders and seek a nation which upholds individual rights and a distinct New Zealand understanding of the good life.

But Anderson’s definition is pretty damn broad, a bit like defining a cat as ‘an animal with four legs AND a tail). Eric Hobsbawm , who not only has one of the best last names EVER ,does a little better, defining it as a series of ‘invented traditions – a set of practices, normally governed by tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual and symbolic nature, seeking to inculcate certain values and norms of behaviour by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past’. This idea of nationalism is more pragmatic; suggesting that a nation is defined by its national stories, myths and tradition. But it is when we consider this framework of nationalism that New Zealand’s brand of nationalism appears weak in its expression.

To consider how New Zealand nationalism is expressed is to consider a history of fundamental social changes, and an ever-shifting set of national priorities, values and ambitions. ‘New Zealand’, as it is commonly viewed in international discourse and in the national imagination began its history as a colonial outpost of Britain. It has evolved from a nation which relied almost exclusively on Mother Britain to meet its economic and security needs to a nation that considers itself a ‘confident and diverse Pacific nation’ (Helen Clark’s words not mine!) which is not afraid to disagree with its allies on major international issues (like we didn’t go to Iraq, and our anti-nuclear stance sunk any chance of America inviting us over for a game of battle ships). Culturally, New Zealand is moving away from its traditional agricultural-based societies with foundations in small rural townships to a more urbanized population which emphasizes New Zealand’s innovation in the international marketplace. There appears to be a new found cosmopolitanism, the consensus of a ‘meat-and-three-veg ‘diet and an entertainment trifecta of rugby, racing and beer have been replaced by a salad bowl of differing values and cultural practices, underpinned with greater emphasis on the significant culturaluniqueness of the Maori. Even the political culture of New Zealand has undergone major upheaval, the ‘cradle to the grave’ welfare state carefully cultivated by successive Labour and National governments since the 1930s were rent asunder by the economic restructuring of the 1984 Labour Government; where the deregulation of the private sector emphasised the values of competition, diversity and individualism over the more traditional values of consensus, conformity and collectivism.

I do not wish to make a value judgement on whether these changes to the New Zealand sense of self will have negative or positive impacts on the country. Indeed, the reader is free to vehemently disagree with the imagery I have used to describe the modern New Zealand nation (in fact, pleeeeeeease tell me if you vehemently disagree, blog comments are to me what Speights is to Jesse Ryder). What I am attempting to show is the difficulties faced in attempting to define what ‘being a New Zealander’ means. Furthermore, despite the dramatic shifts in New Zealanders’ sense of New Zealand, it has not been accompanied by a recasting of the national myths, and the emblems and symbols that traditionally defined the nation are appearing increasingly irrelevant and increasingly inadequate.

New Zealanders, like citizens of any other nation, are raised on stories that legitimize certain value systems and conventions of behaviour as being values that embody the nation. These include the sacrifices made by young soldiers at Gallipoli, being the first nation to give women the vote, and great All Black rugby matches against old Northern Hemisphere rivals. The greatest of these stories, is that of New Zealand beekeeper, Sir Edmund Hillary, being the first man to reach the summit of Mount Everest. At various instances in New Zealand history, this story has been used to perpetuate the myth of the tough, versatile ‘Kiwi bloke’ or to underlie the humanitarian nature of ordinary New Zealanders (with regards to Hillary’s later work in Nepal). However the most noticeable contradiction is that while in 1953, the ascent was held up as an example of New Zealand’s continued fealty to Empire, and a coronation gift to the new Queen of England, it is now viewed as the defining moment where New Zealanders realised the bonds to Mother England could be broken, and that the nation of New Zealand was strong enough to stand alone.

This malleability of New Zealand ‘tradition’ underlies a key problem in expressing New Zealand nationalism. While New Zealand society has undergone a complete overhaul, its short history leads to a dilemma, a need to link to the past, but also a need for the legitimizing foundations of the nation to reflect the current ideals of ‘New Zealand’. The situation that has arisen in New Zealand as a result of the contradictions that plague their myths is that it is plausible for two equally patriotic citizens to reach starkly different conclusions on what it means to be a member of the New Zealand community. This leads to serious issues when considering the symbols that underpin civic nationalism.

Hobsbawm states that the National Flag is one of the core symbols which proclaim the identity and sovereignty of a nation.. In the United States, the flag is held both in literature and in civic life as a sacred article, expressing ‘the beliefs that Americans share, belief in law and peace and the freedom which sustains the human spirit’. (Justice Kennedy’s words, not mine!) To some, to look at the flag is to grasp the soul of a nation and its peoples. (Fuck, what part of my brain did that flowery bile spew from? The medulla oblongwanker?) However, while the New Zealand flag remain deep significance for returned soldiers who fought under its banner, for a growing number of New Zealanders the flag evokes dispassionate deference at best, open scorn at worst. The flags likeness to Australian is a butt of jokes for comedians and a serious debate rages over whether the flag should retain the Union Jack, and a reminder of New Zealand’s former colony status. More and more New Zealanders are choosing to associate with an alternative flag of a silver fern on a black background.

The idea that in a post-colonial settler society, one of the most incontestable manifestations of nationhood can become a battleground over the nation’s future direction is not limited to New Zealand. Canada replaced its Union Jack-adorned ‘Red Ensign’ flag with its well-known Maple Leaf design in 1965, but it came as the result of a long and protracted debate. In 2008, this symbol is the most compelling expression of Canadian identity. While this is perhaps not an argument for a new national flag, it suggests that New Zealand must foster the debate of what it would like the symbol it projects to the world to represent. (The only reason I even bothered to write this is because I like to show off the fact I once won a six-week trip to Canada, and now enjoy pretending I’m an expert on that godforsaken place...)

The essay so far has discussed New Zealand nationalism through the lens of a civic nationalist, as it appears the most intellectually satisfying explanation for the existence of national rituals and traditions. But if the conclusion we reach through looking at New Zealand as an ‘imagined political community’ is that New Zealand suffers a severe lack of imagination and direction, the conclusion reached when analysing New Zealand from an ethnic nationalist perspective offers even more fodder for the pessimist. And although I know you’re ALL superexcited to see just how much more pessimistic I can get, I’m very concerned about my gross flaunting of an acceptable word count...so you’ll have to wait for my next post.

Why I Hate Buses

2009-01-07T22:44:00.003+13:00

“I'd rather go by bus.” (Prince Charles)

For those of you that read my "Repugnance of Eating" post, you might suffer a similar reaction to this one. Consider this forewarning, it's gonna be in the same vein. Stop reading now if you a naive idealist; convinced in the greatness of everything deemed "good". In fact, if that's who you are, just go kill yourself; your relentless positivity drives us normals crazy.

That foreword aside, I hate public buses. They're blue collar, gross, and undignified. But, for whatever reason, they're popular. Poor people use 'em cuz their cheap. Communists use them for the common good. Hippies uses them 'cause it's better for the planet. Really, though, these groups are all members of one uber-group: students. Students are stupid. They sleep in, go to uni, and sit around talking about the greatness of Maoism. All without putting in 15 minutes of genuine work per day. Don't get me wrong, studenthood is fantastic. I'm a relentless fan of learning and the general experiences that come with being a student. But that doesn't mean students are right.

Really, though, it's those student types that most often defend public transportation. The other people that have to patron buses don't. Blue collar types, for instance. They typically don't like the bus any more than I; they just have to take it. They can't afford a car or the fuel to run it. So they have to take the bus. And that's understandable. And okay for them. But for the rest of society - the non-blue collar types - having to sit near them on the bus is degrading. The jerkoff idealists might "boo hiss" me here for being a social elitist here, but the tenability of social elitism isn’t the issue at hand. I'm comfortable with people from different social classes mingling, but it should be done on their terms. People should mingle because they want to; not by force in virtue of having to share the same 40-foot limousine.

And that's really a stupid euphemism for busses - “40-ft limo”. In the words of Tui advertising, “Yea, Right.” It sugar coats over what they are - gross - and makes them sound pleasant (which they’re not). Even brand new busses look fresh out of the Soviet Bloc of yesteryear; made for utility and for the long haul. Ugly patterns designed to hide stains and graffiti. Plastic seats that require little or no maintenance. No air conditioning to cool it, which causes the fat ugly people inside to sweat and stink up the bus more than they normally do on a dreary rainy day. And nothing to quiet the noise of the motor or the world around you. Travelling should be quiet and comfortable; a way for you to get from your point of departure to the point of arrival in comfort and isolation; in a bubble.

Travelling in a bubble keeps you dignified. That's not to say that it makes you dignified. Whatever level of dignity you got when you get in your car you'll still have when you get out. But cars typically don't take away your dignity or sophistication. Sure some cars, like "boy racers" look (and are) stupid. But if you own one of those or freely enter one you look (and are) stupid to begin with, regardless of how you choose to get around. No reasonable person can say that buses are dignified. Because they ain't. You look like a chump when you wait at the bus stop and when you run to make it there on time; dignified ppl get around on their schedule, not that of the city transit authority. And no one looks dignified getting off a bus, no matter how nicely she's dressed. When you get off a busy you stagger a bit, having had to jump to the curb, and look around as if disoriented. Then, as soon as the bus loudly pulls away, you walk and try to present yourself as having been there the whole time; having no association with the ungodly abomination crowding our fine city streets.

The worst, tho, is the existence of the bus itself. I already went over the horrors of being forcibly associated with riff raff and the lack of basic creature comforts our advanced civilization has afforded us, but the real tragedy is the suffering inflicted on everyone so long as buses crowd our motorways. Even from the outside they're an eyesore. Brandished with fugly paint jobs and whored to the hilt with adverts. While noisy and smelly on the inside, those offenses are worse for those good folks in the convertible next to it. But this is when those jerkoff idealists pipe up again; moaning about the "benefits" to the environment. Gimme a break. Buses surely aren't improving my environment. And their detrimental qualities - the ones I've presented fairly here - outweigh any prospective green perks. I mean, if you're that concerned about the planet, walk. Or bicycle. Or get a horse. But you're ideals and attitudes shouldn't be forced upon the rest of us. We shouldn't have to deal with buses just because you say the planet needs them. In the defence of buses, the only plausible avenue is prudence. With out buses, how’s the blue collar worker suppose to get to the pulp mill? Or the punk to McD's to flip my burger? Or the crazy vagrant to his street corners downtown? They need the bus. But those students types who support the but business don't. So while buses may be a necessary evil of the modern world, that doesn't mean we need to like 'em. In that way, buses are kinda like taxes. 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.

Not more Knots: Why the Scout movement ruins EVERYTHING.

2009-01-06T23:31:00.009+13:00

In case you hadn't noticed, its now 2009. And the world still fails. The economy still sucks as much as the painful movie remake of 'Get Smart', and apparently Israel has decided its time to see the Gaza stripped. Worst of all, a judge has ruled that Blanket Man must wear underpants. This would be a perfect time for me to write a bitter polemic, outlining how we are all going to hell, and why the world is doomed. But, fuck it - I'm on holiday, so today I shall pick on some nerds.

And the Boy Scouts are geeks. I should know, I was one for seven years. I learnt to tie a bloody good reef knot. But I also learnt how to deal with virulent social ostracisation from the cool kids in the class. I was working towards my 'Teamwork' badge, they were figuring new ways to burn ants, steal the smaller kid's marbles and making a 'porn hut' in the long grass on the school field. I enjoyed the camps and the bush walks at the time, but I left the Boy Scouts at 13, a broken, disenchanted man. I wanted to be one of the cool kids, and to be one of the cool kids you couldn't be a Boy Scout. And because the Boy Scouts liked nature and camps and bush walks, if I wanted to be cool....I had to start littering.

I'm sure I wasn't the only kid who left Scouts in a vain attempt to get a primary-school girlfriend. I definitely wasn't the only kid who looked at the scouts, tying their 'woggles', saluting the 'flag' and bowing to 'Akela' (the adult who ran the Scout session is called Akela, after the jungle book), and thought 'What a bunch of saps!' And I definitely wasn't the only kid that stayed inside playing Sega Master System 2 because nature was, to use schoolyard lexicon, gay.

But nature isn't gay. (Although some trees are a little fruity - Zing!) White-water rafting, having crazy adventures in new and unexplored wildernesses, kayaking - that stuff's awesome, or at the very least its as cool as staying inside trying to escape from the Abominable Snowman in Skifree. My generation is the first generation to have grown up with gaming consoles, afternoon kids TV. My generation were also the first kids to look outside, and think it was lame. To a large extent, we associated the idea that nature was lame, and that protecting and preserving nature was lame with the idea that the Boy Scouts were lame. Considering we are apparently the last generation that can save the planet from a total environmental meltdown, the fact that most of us will be passing on the idea that the 'great outdoors' isn't really that much fun, and isnt really worth saving, if it means a much funnerer mall gets to be put in its place, is deeply depressing indeed.

There is a role for the Scout Movement in the 21st century, teaching kids that the great outdoors are worth saving, and hyping up the role that the individual can play in saving it. Scouts also extolls the virtues of personal responsibilty, but also with a social conscience to look out for those worse off than yourself. That's a pretty decent raison d'etre. But the problem with the Boy Scouts is that it remains firmly rooted in the 19th century, and the grand high mugwumps, or whatever the leaders of the Scout movement are called are even less enthusiastic about change than the Vatican. There's three major things crippling the boy scouts, and thats God, Mowgli and the Military.

Firstly God. As the lolvideo I found on Youtube, and embedded at the top of this post will attest. 'Reverence' is considered a fundamental tenet of the Scout Law. All those who wish to become new Scouts must swear 'to do their duty to their god'. What a bunch of crap. There is a time and place for young Christians to be reminded of the need to reverent to the Almighty, and that's Sunday school. Lord Baden-Powell, the founder of the Scout movement, may have considered that God went hand-in-hand with being a constructive member of society but this is an isolated and alienating position to hold in the modern, pluralist state. Not only that, but by actively reinforcing the idea that you can't be helpful, tolerant, trustworthy and generally good without being a Christian marginalizes kids that might otherwise be receptive to the virtues of saving nature and social responsibility, but dont want a lecture on the bible.

Next Mowgli. Scouts is littered with references to the Jungle Book. Cub Scout leaders are referred to as 'Akela's' after the leader of the Wolf Pack, and a Scout meeting normally involves a bizarre ritual of howling to the Akela. Again, Lord Baden-Powell may have felt that the themes and morals behind Rudyard Kipling's tome had relevance to ideas of collective responsibilty. But ours is a generation that associates the Jungle Book with Baloo singing the Bare Necessities, not as a hefty 19th century text. Howling to the leader no longer looks like a celebration of boyhood, it looks like a fucking after-school cult meeting. Worse than that, its lame.

Finally, the military. Baden-Powell's generation considered that 'good boys were well disciplined boys' and to attend a Scout meeting is to imagine you have entered North Korea or some other tin-pot country that still has compulsory military service. Scouts salute the flag, must iron their uniforms, swear fealty to the Queen, must be tidy at all times. To kids in 2008, this looks archaic, outdated and lame - things their parents make them do...not something that would freely choose to do after school. The role of Scouts must be to shows kids that nature is fun, and that helping others builds a better society, not drill kids that they are maggots who have a moral duty to respect their elders.

In conclusion, when most people look at new grim reports about climate change, or hear news that their is a mess of plastic the size of 2 United States floating about in the Pacific Ocean there is much handwringing about over-population and unsustainable use of resources. But, me - I blame the people who showed me and my friends that being sustainable and giving a damn was for weiners. A pox on ye, Scout Movement and every last woggle-wearing goody two-shoes muppet amongst you.

Alex

RickRoll'd

2008-12-28T14:19:00.004+13:00

To be frank, 2008 has sucked. Sure, the Kiwis won the Rugby League World Cup and on balance, NZ had a pretty good Olympics but the enduring legacy of the year 2008 (or, to be consistent with Paul D's earlier post, this particular 365-day calendrical cycle) is of a global economy in meltdown, skyrocketing unemployment rates, no progress on climate change, free trade deals or Zimbabwe De-Mugabeification. Oh, and the death of Heath Ledger. But throughout 2008, the big adventures of Barack (Hussein) Obama stood out like a beacon of hope in a swamp full of fail. And as a former recipient of Time Magazine's person of the year award, I can say with conviction that Mr Obama deserves to be singled out as this year's winner. His epic Democratic primary battle with Billary Clinton was far better entertainment than this year's lacklustre Super 14 or NZ's hope less cricket team. And the way he effortlessly dealt with John McPain and that godawful Alaskan hillbilly woman was a stirring victory for an America we thought had abandoned reason for madness (and Cheney). I heart Obama. Which is why that in my last post for 2008, I'm so suprised that I find myself bitterly condemning him.

Mr. Obama has chosen Rick Warren, the founder and senior pastor of an evangelical megachurchstravaganza (the Saddleback Church,) to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. For a man elected as the merchant of liberal change from the dark days of the Bush Administration's pandering to evangelicals, this is a depressing slap in the face indeed. It is an obvious attempt to reach out to the hardxcore Christian fundamentalists that declared themselves scared of Obama's MuslimSocialistTerroristExtremist hidden agenda during the election campaign, and voted against Obama, and all he represents, in massive numbers. (check out some of their solid, principled and logical reasons for doing so here). After all, Pastor Rick is wildly popular amongst his congregation, and apparently amongst the wider American public, his book 'The Purpose Driven Life' has sold over 20 million copies and the media's dubbed him 'America's Pastor.' He's also a gross, and miserable bigot.

What a prat.

Team Obama has defended the decision on two grounds. That Warren is popular, and that America, with its proud tradition of free speech, represents all voices, and the Inauguration ceremony must reflect that. For two reasons, thats complete and utter crap.

Firstly, Warren's raison d'etre is to actively advocate, to an audience of millions, why it is legitimate to deny basic rights to a group of people in society based on a biological characteristic, and to treat them as inferior. Some of the stuff Warren says goes beyond the type of free speech that says 'I have a position on a moral issue, and you should share this position and here is why' and is the sort of 'free speech' that says 'I believe that a group is inferior to me, and here are some lies about the things they do.' That type of hate speech may be free, but the social villification of homosexuality has major costs; the active discrimination of gays in society and in the law. In a weighing up of competing rights, I find it inconceivable to think that the right of Warren and the Saddleback kids to spew forth homophobic bile should be placed above the right of the gay community to be allowed to 'live according to their own conception of the good life', without fear of discrimination (last time I'll use that phrase in '08, promise) Your social contract shouldn't be inferior just because you sign it with a limp wrist, so to speak.

Secondly, even if you disagree with me on the previous point there is still a fundamental difference between saying 'we allow the views of Pastor Rick to be expressed in the marketplace of ideas' and saying 'here, Pastor Rick, please deliver my invocation in front of a global audience in their hundreds of millions'. That's not some perfectly competitive marketplace of ideas, that's winning the lottery. By asking Pastor Rick to deliver the invocation, Barack Obama tacitly accepts all that the Saddleback Church stands for, and all the Neanderthalic twitterings made by Pastor Warren against the legitimacy of homosexuality. Even if Pastor Rick is able to point to a flock of millions who share his views, Obama should not be satisfied that the job of the President is to reflect the general will, whatever that will may be. Obama's role must be to use the dignity associated with the President's office, to make the case for fairness and equality in the places where it is most unpopular.

For a man who claimed he would lead for all Americans, this is a disastrous start. For an American LBGTI community (think I got them all) still reeling from the shock passing of Proposition 8, an amendment to the Californian Constitution that explicitly bans gay marriage, this is a hammer blow to morale of the movement. Not only that, but with America still exerting it's influence as a moral force, attempting to bring a discourse of universal rights to some of the bleakest authoritarian regimes on the planet, the gay movement needs an America willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of homosexuals as equals, not as dirty inferiors to be explicitly excluded from the American definition of 'rights'.

November 4th 2008, and Obama's acceptance speech, was considered by some political pundits to be the 'moment of victory for the black civil rights movement.' Considering black Americans remain rooted to the bottom of major social statistics, I'd dispute the truth of that claim. Nonetheless, if Obama shows increasing willingness to embrace a raving evangelical's voice of hatred, January 20th 2009 could yet become the moment of defeat for the homosexual civil rights movement.

Alex

Happy New Year!

2008-12-27T18:42:00.006+13:00

"Nothing changes on New Year's Day." (Bono)

As we get closer to having to buy another Hello Kitty Calendar, there’s a lot of talk of looking back on the year and reflecting. It happens at the end of every year. You often see things like the Year in Pictures or Best Snacks of 2008. You get people looking ahead; deciding on resolutions; planning on how they’ll change with the new year – how they’ve learnt from their mistakes and experiences of the closing year, or whatever. All this, I contend, is total crap.

These people – who are, I should say, typically suburban automaton drones – are wholly diluted in their own positivity. They think they’ve come up with novel ideas for change and improvement and that this is the best time to enact them. But, of course, they’re wrong (on both accounts). There’s nothing really unique about them, what they’re doing, or the situations they’re in. Countless people over the centuries have resolved to quit cheating on loved ones, to quit stealing, to quit being such a jerk. And there’s nothing particularly unique about the end of a calendar cycle – that’s just a remnant of the Roman Empire and trait of Western society that has, almost fully, been imperialized onto all cultures of the world.

I mean, come on, the end of December 31 does not have any genuine privileged status. It’s a day, just like the next one, just like the previous one, and just like every other god damn day. The neophytes and philistines that are out parading around on New Year’s Eve are sick for doing so. Sick in the head. Fooled by another ridiculous tradition into thinking that there’s a genuine cause for celebration when, in fact, there is none. The worst is when this is their primary motivation for partying; it’s indicative of a shallow, unexamined, and empty existence. Celebrating New Year’s is, after all, as absurd as celebrating your birthday. Like, gimme a freakin’ break. There are few greater ways to be selfish and egoistic than to, once per year, have a party for being born (an “accomplishment” you, really, didn’t contribute to). These “times for festivities” are the most undeserving accomplishment and it’s revolting to sit there, act special (when you’re, quite clearly, not) and demand gifts and warm wishes from friends and family.

But the real nonsense of it all, of course, is: why wait until New Year's Eve to change? (As if the change on your ill set watch from 11:59pm to 12:01am marks some genuine threshold.) I mean, if you’re doing something wrong, or bad, or whatever, why wait? Changing something about yourself or what you do because “it’s a new year, man” is an offense to the concept of self improvement. You should always be striving to better yourself all ways. That should be the key motivation to change.

So what’s the moral of this story? Simple: to celebrate hallow days is to trivialize the important reasons in life for rejoice. Moreover, if you fail to recognize the foolishness of celebrating these hallow days, you’re no more than another slave to idiotic cultural norms. But take note: I’m not saying stay in on New Year's Eve and be unhappy. Instead, I’m pro going out and having fun. But don’t – DON’T – regard it as an important day or the reason to enjoy yourself. Enjoying life should be the aim of your pursuit; having a good time should be the reason to have a good time. If you’re only out and about because it’s your birthday, or cuz it’s New Year’s, or b/c you think TGIF, then you’re a sap and should just stay home (or, better still, just kill yourself). The assholes who are driven to celebrate these artificial motivations are the narrow minded yuppies who say things like “Why are you going out tonight? It’s Tuesday!” and ruin our society through their head-in-the-sand behaviour; they’re the people who think they’re right (when they’re not) without any really justification other than the fact that they believe that they’re special (when they’re not). 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 Dialogue on Failure: Xmas Edition

2008-12-23T16:35:00.006+13:00

Buenos Nachos Failure Amigos,

We've been toying for a while with the idea of writing some blog posts in the form of a conversation. Some issues are hard and have many good competing arguments...so we thought maybe if we wrote in a 'stream of conciousness' style maybe, just maybe, we could reach some enlightened conclusions. Either that, or it will devolve into one of those classic interweb arguments where we compare each other to Hitler. As always, let us know what you think...

LOL Always,
Paul et Alex

***

On Being Grinches

ALEX: I guess I'll start off this little conversationfest with a rather morbid and depressing little fact about me. I, Alexander Joseph Nelder, do not like Christmas. Sure, I like it's ability to bring people together but I hate the rampant consumerism associated with it, those disgraceful movies about surburban American families competing with each other to see who has the best Christmas lights, Santa parades that are an excuse for every corporate logo in the Western Hemisphere to capture an audience of wide-eyed impressionable children, the fact the manger scene was made up by a Pope in the 13th Century and Santa by the guy in charge of Coca-Cola's advertising campaign. Obviously, I still celebrate Christmas - to refuse to would be the social equivalent of covering myself in horse manure and running naked through a kindergarten. Christmas, and the tree, and the carol singing and the cake and the presents (if not really the Jesus) are a big thing in my family as I'm sure it is for many families in New Zealand, and the Western World.

But, the wider point is that for many families in New Zealand and the Western World, Christmas is not one of the traditions celebrated in their household. So I find it offensive that in our society, which claims freedom of religion and a pluralistic state as two of its strongest corner-stones, Christmas is seen as a special holiday ,worthy of celebration in the public and private sphere, while other holidays of special significance to a cultural and religious group (namely, Diwali, Hanukah, Ramadam) are deemed to fall within the rubric of 'religious holiday' and cannot be recognised by the state. I'm not advocating the banning of Christmas Day (it didn't work out too well for Oliver Cromwell), nor am I calling for the recognition of all religious holidays to be granted as public holidays. However, I do think that public bodies in particular, but also corporations should have to write 'Happy Holidays' as opposed to 'Merry Christmas'. Doesn't seem to hard, does it?

What doth thou think, Paul?

PAUL: Well, I dunno. I'm not sure that to refuse to celebrate Christmas is the social equivalent of covering oneself in horse manure and running naked through a kindergarten. But what do I know; I've celebrated Festivus. But it seems to me that it's not important what you celebrate this time of year but, rather, that you celebrate. The fact is that this time of year is traditionally regarded as a social/family time of year; time to be merry. However religion is the traditional motivation to have get-togethers and be merry this time of year. But, I think, this turns out to be irrelevant too – traditional reasons for doing something don’t make that something is bad; nor do those traditional motivations need to be the only acceptable motivations. It's just easier for secularists (or, rather, all non-practicing Christians) to say they're celebrating Christmas when, in fact, they're celebrating christmas. (Did ya spot the difference there kids? The astute ones did, while those in the dunce hat went to go back to check.) So what's the difference that makes a difference between the big C and lil c? The former denotes a certain kind of religious event, while the latter just means you're having an event a la the end of It's a Wonderful Life or National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation .

Ok, Alex, before I let you get another word in let me answer your next question: So is it a good thing that religion has been kicked from the holiday season centre stage for most people in the Western World? Well, no, not really. I say that because the void that wouldn't have been left has been crammed full by corporations.

So what does that mean? Well I think that the absence of religious motivation backs up your (or, rather, our) intuition that public institutions shouldn't partake in "The Xmas Doctrine" – it doesn’t reflect the disposition of the majority. That aside, the problem boils down to this: even if public institutions are taken to mean christmas (lil c) when they say "Merry Christmas", that certainly doesn't make it alright; they are, after all, part of the public sphere and saying "Merry Christmas" makes other causes for celebration second-class (even if this isn't their intent). And that's wrong. So public institutions (and the representatives thereof) should only say "Happy Holidays". But I'm not convinced that Corporations should be as pliant to public attitudes as much as public institutions. I mean, so what if a corporation decides to distinctly celebrate Christmas? I certainly don't care if they bastardize it (more). Right??

ALEX: Even though my internet is currently too slow to let me watch clips from It's a Wonderful Life, you're right. There's two ways of celebrating Christmas, religious Christmas, which involves mass and manger scenes and Jesus, and secular Christmas, which involves red-nosed reindeer and those really nice pies with fruit mince. And I guess that elevates Christmas above other 'religious holidays' such as Ramadan. (It's pretty damn hard for an atheist to find starving themselves for a month fun.) I have heard a pretty good argument that, in fact, Christmas in NZ (and the rest of the Western world) had transcended its religious underpinnings to become an inherent part of Western culture, so to deny store employees the ability to wear Santa Hats in the name of 'religious sensitivity' was an attack on our cultural norms.

You've done a really good analysis of why public institutions should say 'Happy Holidays' as opposed to 'Merry Christmas'. The public sphere has to stay neutral on all aspects of religious activity, that is one of the demands of pluralism. But what would you say to a public institution displaying the more secular aspects of Christmas, the parts that don't pertain to religion directly. Obviously, a navitity scene set up on the grounds of a nation's Parliament would be an affront to pluralism, but what about a diorama of Santa and his reindeer. The bible doesn't mention Santa (though the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe does), so does that make it ok?

As for my original statement that corportations should also be forced to say 'Happy Holidays', let me try and defend that. In general, It shouldn't be the role of the state to decide what beliefs and celebrations are, and are not, acceptable for private individuals and entities to display. But maybe we should make an exception to this rule if the belief the private entity wanted to display was a comment on the inferiority of a class of persons in society. Say if Wal-Mart wanted to have a sale in honour of the KKK's existence or to celebrate the Holocaust, maybe it would be ok for the goverment to step in then and say 'That isn't OK'. Given you think that the reason public entitites should use happy holidays is to avoid a sense that other religious holidays are second class, surely a corporation that says 'Merry Xmas' at the exclusion of all other religious holiday is conveying this same sense of Christmas-centrism?

Maybe the difference I mentioned earlier applies again. Is it OK for a store to display Santa's Workshop, but not the Navitity scene?

PAUL: Well, shit, bro, I dunno. But I'd think that, when it comes to whether or not public institutions should be permitted to display icons of secular christmas (e.g. Santa and his elves), the issue hinges on the ambiguity between traditional/religious Christmas and secular chirstmas; and it's pretty ambiguous. When someone says Merry xmas I dunno really know if she's celebrating Christmas or christmas. So, because of that, it's essential that the government keep up appearances, I guess. And that can't be done if they throw Merry Christmas and Santa around. I'll try to make my point by drawing an analogy: it's not enough for those of public institutions to avoid conflict of interests, it's gotta also look like there's no conflict of interest. Follow me?

Now about corporations: So the issue no longer seems to be whether it's wrong for corporations, by their own will, to be pro-Christmas. Instead, it's should the government allow corporations the right to make that choice. I dunno. That seems a lil too much U.S.S.R. for me, but maybe I've just been reading too much P.J. O'Rourke lately. Private institutions are distinct in an important regard: they are primarily subject to the will of their shareholders and customers. So if you wanna say that Wal-mart ought not be allowed to have a KKK Day Sale, you'd better be comfortable saying that the customers and shareholders ought not be allowed t celebrate such a day as individuals. It comes down to the limits of acceptable free expression. Corporations are just another means through which ppl can express themselves; insofar as corps cater to the will of shareholders and customers. So here I'd say stores celebrating Santa-style xmas is okay, b/c it's an expression of what the (majority of) customers and shareholders are celebrating. This is, also, the mechanism by which Christmas has become de-religion-ized. Objections?

ALEX: Hmmm, I think we are in agreement as to Public Bodies, as in 'Dont mention Christmas, keep it neutral, keep it secular.' I'm not entirely convinced on your corporations point, but I don't think we're going to come to a conclusion on that unless we keep up this conversation 'till Jesus comes back. (lol) I think our disagreement lies in the fact you think that the state restricting a private entities right to celebrate something is a breach of the right to freedom of expression, and I think it's valid if it means people don't feel their religion is inferior.

I'd be interested to see what people think about this, whether we are valiant defenders of the pluralist state, or namby-pamby politically correct weiners. I'm going to go wrap presents now, and curse loudly every time an ad for that god-awful 'Four Holidays' movie comes on TV.

And from both of us at 'A word on Failure', Feliz Navidad.

Hey Jealousy

2008-12-15T20:19:00.004+13:00

“Jealousy is a tiger that tears not only its prey but also its own raging heart” (unknown)

Jealousy is a funny thing. Some of us suffer from it more than others. Some of us experience it without justification. Some people probably like the power they get when they make someone else jealous. But I don’t think any of us enjoy feeling jealous. Let’s try to get to the root of it.

First of all, it turns out that describing jealousy is a easier said than done. It seems to have something to do with envy, but when we said things like “she can be a really jealous person” we, surely, we don’t just mean that she can be a really envious person. Envy and jealousy, while related, aren't the same thing. For them to be the same I think you'd have to be able give an affirmative answer to both: (1) is it the case that, when she sees some hoe flirting with her boyfriend across the bar and she become engulfed in rage, she’s simply envious for the flirtatious girl? And, (2) is she’s, when she tries to call her boyfriend and he doesn’t answer she becomes engulfed in rage, just envious of those she assumes he’s off having fun with? Some might think “yes” to these questions, but I’m hesitant.

In the bar example, we aren’t accurately describing the situation when we say that she wants to be in the position of the flirtatious girl (that’s what it means to be envious); instead she is provoked into feeling jealous by the situation – she doesn’t want anyone else to play with her toy; she’s possessive of her boyfriend – the situation triggers a different reaction in her than one of envy. The same is true for call example: his failure to answer her call triggers her feelings of emotional reaction. Here the trigger is speculation of what he might be doing; speculation fueled by an absence of trust. Envy doesn't enter in at all.

So, while there’s definitely a close link between jealousy and envy, they aren’t the same thing. And they have certainly different triggers; I don't think an absence of trust can trigger envy in someone. I Also don’t even think jealousy is a particular kind of envy reserved for “romantic” relationships. While a jealous person might be triggered to feel envious of the fun or attention she speculates people are having with her object of desire, she also experiences a possessive feeling towards that object of her desire (e.g. her boyfriend or, lacking that, her crush). So jealousy can occur simultaneously with other emotions.

Is jealousy a good thing? I’m gonna say no. As I’ve already mentioned, there are a number of different triggers for one’s jealous feelings. A key one, that I mentioned, was baseless speculation fueled by the absence of trust. An absence of sufficient trust is a hugely bad thing. While the absence of trust is only going to play in when some is jealous of his or her romantic partner (rather than someone she wants to be her romantic partner), it’s in such situations that a lack of trust will be most damaging. Because of this, jealously is gonna be a bad this. But, in when there's complete trust between a couple of lovers, one of them can still get jealous. (Some might challenge me on that claim.) And here jealousy can still have detrimental consequences: in additional to be potentially damaging to a relationship (or a roadblock to the development of a relationship, since trust is earned not granted), jealousy is also a bad thing for those who experience it. Jealousy isn’t a pleasant experience. And it typically makes you do bad or irrational things. I think this is intuitively obvious -- I can't think of any reasonable person defending jealous as a virtuous emotion.

So I guess, then, the question de jour is whether or not we should tolerate romantic partners who suffer from jealousy. A knee jerk answer might be "Of course! Why not, fool? It's not really their fault." But hold on a sec. We just finished saying that it's a bad thing; it can be descrtuctive; it can cause suffering and hurt feelings. So, then, my answer is no -- you’re a sucker if you stick with an exceedingly jealous partner. But I’ll soften my position a bit with the following caveat: if you want go ahead and tolerate a partner who sometimes suffers from moderate jealousy; someone who can manage her jealously. But don’t settle for someone excessively jealous, or someone unable (or unwilling) to mange her jealousy. Here’s why I take this position: it not really pleasant to be with someone who’s really jealous and, if they really cared about you, they’d work their hardest to keep themselves from expressing their jealousy – they’d suffer solely internally such that you aren’t worse off because of their condition. Some one that dedicated to your happiness is someone worth keeping around. 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.

Between Iraq and a Hard Case : Part Two: Sudan > Saddam.

2008-12-12T21:28:00.007+13:00

In my last post (written many eons ago), I promised that in this blog post I would attempt to answer, with typical bluster,swagger and know-it-all-ness, a question that has plagued human rights scholars, military morality philosophers and Dick Cheney ever since it became clear that there were no secret weapons stashes hidden in the deserts of Iraq, just sand. That question is 'Even if it turns the intelligence that Saddam had WMD's and was best buds with Osama was a complete and total farce, doesn't that fact that we got rid of Saddam anyway make the world and the Iraqi people safer and justify it all anyway?'

But it turns out, trying to write this blog post was a complete and total disaster. Turns out that this is a pretty difficult question to answer, and while most of my posts are written quickly, often when I am annoyed, sometimes when I am sad, occassionally when I am drunk (see if you can spot which posts convey which emotion, kids). But with this post, I've agonised for weeks over several drafts. The first time I tried I ended up writing a pretty heavy-handed defence of Saddam Hussein's (and Iraq's) right to sovereignty. But I decided a blog post entitled 'Who's Sane? Hussein?' would shred my valiant co-blogger Paul's wavering faith in my ability to have ideas and probably make him cry at the thought of his blog being reduced to this. My next draft went the other extreme, and defended the right of the US to intervene in any situation where there was the slightest whiff of Human rights abuses. Then I realised I had just justified, in my own head, a reason for the US to invade New Zealand on account of our Electoral Finance Act. It was at this point I decided I needed a lie-down. The issue is terribly convoluted, and even now, I'm not convinced I've been effective in outlining my position. So here are some general thoughts, and I may return to the topic later, perhaps in a more contemporary situation.

Firstly, I believe that there is a legitimate case for military intervention by a foreign power (preferably the UN, but unilaterally if necessary) in cases where there is gross persecution, genocide, breaches of fundamental rights by a government against its citizens. Genocides such as Rwanda, and the current horrific disaster in Darfur represent dark stains on the conscience of the international community. Obviously the most effective and enduring form of long-term regime change isn't one that comes from the guns and cowboy diplomacy of a foreign military that can't possibly understand (and in many cases makes no effort to understand) the subtle naunces, the political culture and the social norms that underpin that country's politics, it comes from an internal revolution. But in many cases an internal popular revolution, a la Les Miserables, in a country where the tyrannical government has a solid grasp on the military is just code for a lot of innocent and helpless getting mowed down. In situations where there is vast 'firepower' inequalities between those in power and those who would overthrow power, the only way that there can be realistic regime change for the better is with the help of a foreign military, which can stabilise a tattered country, prevent a power vacuum by which insurgencies can flourish, and create the conditions for which a new government can begin to rebuild a decent society.

I realise that in saying this , I am effectively telling the American mother in Kansas with three sons in the military that not only will her children put their lives on the line in defence of their country, they will also gallivant over the world saving people in places she has never heard of, from the action of governments whose leaders have names she can't pronounce. Also, her tax dollars will pay for this. I realise that it would be political suicide to suggest it, and good reason to at least wait for the UN to dictate that this is a situation that justifies an intervention on behalf of the entire world. But the UN Security Council remains moribund, and it's inability to gain traction on issues that cry out for intervention, such as Darfur, render it at best an embarrassment, at worst, criminally incompetent. And even if it is politically untenable, it doesn't detract from the moral force of the case for intervention. There must be action to avoid a second Rwanda, to end or prevent humanitarian catastrophes. America, as the leading military power in the world, as well as other Western nations with a conscience must exercise the UN's responsibility to protect, even if the UN doesn't want to play ball.

But I could bang on about morality all I want, but as I have already pointed out, there is no political mandate in an economic recession and in the aftermath of two flailing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to justify humanitarian intervention. This is why justifying Iraq on the grounds that 'it got rid of Saddam' is so wrong. Firstly, in cases of humanitarian intervention even more important than the overthrow of the tyrannical government is the stabilisation and security of the area, this is what lets the voters and the taxpayers back home know that lives were lost in the pursuit of peace, not in some hopeless cause. But Iraq was so poorly handled that the American civilian was subjected to years of Iraq turning from a country ruled by an iron-fisted dictator to the country where the rule of law was a joke, and the quality of life of the Iraqi people even worse. That reinforces the idea that interventions can never work.

Secondly and more importantly, Saddam, for all his evil, was a lot less worse than many other nasty regimes. Think the military junta in Myanmar, the Hutu extremists running riot in the Congo, the Janjaweid militia in Darfur, Mugabe's goons in Zimbabwe....the point is that if you set the 'threshold for intervention' at Saddam, then you force yourself to take on a whole basket of conflicts in all far-flung parts of the Earth. The voting public look at the possible expenses, both in terms of lives lost and financial cost, and baulk. Humanitarian intervention needs to be justified as something that happens in 'really, really bad cases', where there is a broad consensus that a government is denying citizens the ability to survive, rather than just breaching what Westerners would consider to be a valid human right. The goal is to prevent genocide, not install America as 'World Police'. But by neo-conservaties declaring Iraq as a 'Charge of the Rights Brigade', instead of just showing some balls and admitting they fucked up their intelligence, an already difficult case for humanitarian intervention becomes almost impossible to make.

In conclusion, Genocide sucks.

Alex

And Justice For All?

2008-12-10T00:06:00.003+13:00

“My occupation now, I suppose, is jail inmate.” (Theodore Kaczynski)

Let’s take a trip down memory lane... back to a time when the grass was green, the air was fresh, and cell phones were huge. Let’s go back to the 1990s. Back then this guy named O.J. Simpson was the defendant in “the trail of the century”. He was accused of murdering his wife and her friend. While he spent time in jail during the trail, in the end he escaped conviction and went free.

Now O.J. Simpson is off to jail. Again. But this time he’s not just in jail for the duration of a trial. No, this time he’s been CONVICTED, and sentenced, to hard time in the slammer. What does this mean? Well it means 2 things. For one, it’s another instance of the public’s fascination with the wayward lives of celebrities. For another, it means there’s justice in the system after all. While I could waste our time talking about the former, I’ll instead try to say something meaningful about the latter.

I think (or hope) that we all know about O.J.’s exploits. From his murder trail (Alex isn’t the only one who can link), to his related civil suit, to his most recent “let’s steal sports memorabilia” trail.... and let's not forget his book 'If I did it'. So now that we're all up-to-date let’s say, for the sake of argument, that O.J. is in fact guilty of killing his wife (Nicole Brown), and her friend. Can we, now that he’s going to jail “for good”, say that justice has been sufficiently served? If he DID kill his wife and friend back in the 90s, there was clearly a miscarriage of justice when he was found not guilty. But karma came around, right? He’s off to jail now. The victim’s families won their civil suit. Alls well that ends well, right? I’m not so sure.

If cops and lawyer shows on TV have taught me anything, it’s that the system can’t always get the bad guy for the exact crime committed. Instead, those fighting on behalf of us sometimes need to settle for some other or lesser charge. For instance the “little fish” criminal is allowed to plea to a lesser crime in exchange for evidence against the “big fish”; or those Ness types settle on getting those Al Capone types on whatever they can. And there seems to be this perception that that’s okay; that, when such things happen, justice is still served.

But I’m not convinced. And I think the O.J. case is a good counterexample. I think here it's much harder to say that justice hasn't been served, especially with regard to the Brown family. And I don't see how they could get any better deal than what they got now. But just because they can't get anymore out of the system, that doesn't mean they should be satisfied. Don't get me wrong, they have reason to be happy that O.J. is off to jail. But, come on, that wrong he committed against Nicole Brown, her family, her friend, and society at large hasn't been righted.

So how is this different than Al Capone? I think our intuitions about Capone are different: I think here we want to be able to say that justice was served. So how are the 2 cases different? Well, for one thing, O.J.'s murder trial was bungled; whereas they just never tried Capone for the murders and whatnot he did. But surely that's not enough – it doesn't seem to make sense to say that justice was served with Capone despite the fact that they couldn't even get to trial against him (except for tax evasion). Like O.J. the end result is the same: the wrongdoer isn't punished for all the wrongs he did (or, rather, all the wrongs he's known to have done).

So, then, is it just the case that this kind of halfway justice a by-product of our system? Sometimes justice just can't be served fully? That seems to also be something TV has taught me. But that feels wildly unsatisfactory. If this is how it is, why should we be content with system? Because it can't be practically improved? Again, feels wildly unsatisfactory. 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.

Paul & Alex Present: Point/Counter-Point

2008-12-05T21:10:00.008+13:00

Greetings faithful fan(s) of AWordonFailure,

Today we present the first post using the Paul and Alex joint account. As you may have noticed from our older posts, we disagree on just about everything (including how much pie is too much pie or when is it okay to order a prostitute), so we figured it might be fun, and kinda interesting, to write blog posts in the form of a point/counter-point debate: present two sides of an issue and then let you, the reader, decide if one of us is right - or if we are both totally nuts. At other times we thought it would be interesting to write some blog posts in the form of a conversation, and see if we can reach a consensus, or at least get some deeper analysis on some big issues. (Look for this in the near future!) Send us a comment telling us what you think; comments really do make us happy, further the discussion, and boost our ego.

So without further ado here's our first joint blog post, where we are going to get all hubristic, and pretend to be the governor-general of Canada.

LOL ALWAYS,
P-Diddy and A-Nel.

***

Great White Crisis

Canada is a country normally famous for putting the sap of maple trees on pancakes, saying 'eh' and 'aboot' an awful lot, and generally being pretty, well....boring. And stable. So it's pretty amazing that over the last couple of weeks, the Canadian media has been bandying about terms like 'coup', 'banana republic' and 'Zimbabwe North'. The Prime Minister, or at least a man who could once claim to be prime minister, may now just beat out Sarah Palin and the Australian Rugby League team for the title of BIGGEST FAIL EVER. He, a man who won 20% of the popular vote at the last election, has been burning up the airwaves rambling about plots that would lead to the destruction of Canada. What the hell happened?

It's all explained pretty well in this article. But for those of you who are too lazy to click on the link, here's the 411:
There was an election in Canada on October 14, where the Conservative party (led by Stephen Harper) won the most seats (but not enough to form an majority government). Normally this would mean Harper would be settling down and looking forward to being the PM for at least a while, steering his country through the financial crisis and looking like an awkward jerky robot in photographs. However, the Liberal and New Democrat parties, as well as the separatist Bloc Quebecois, enraged by the hubris of the Conservatives have allied together. This is noteworthy because, together, they control a majority of the seats in Parliament such that they can force a no-confidence motion in the Conservative government, topple it, then form their own hydra-government. Strictly speaking, though, the NDP and the Liberals alone have entered into an agreement to create a coalition government; the Bloc as only formally agreed to oust the Conservatives from power and support the Coalition for at least 1.5 years. (That is, the Coalition would only be made up of NDP and Liberal MPs.)

Okay, now that you've passed Canadian Politiks 101, here's the graduate course: So even though this would be a historical first in Canada. Realize that this isn't a "crazy" or even novel idea: New Zealand, for instance, has had coalition governments before and that pretty lil country hasn't devolved into a Mad Max wasteland. Moreover, it's recently come to light that MPs in past Canadian Parliaments had this same idea -- apparently the Alliance Party (which has now been swallowed up by the Conservative Party) once considered trying to form a coalition government back when the Liberals formed the government.

If it sounds complex, that's cos it kinda is. The result is that Stephen Harper now resembles a broken man, having gone from Prime Minister to 'former' Prime Minister without ever losing an election outright. For New Zealand reader(s), imagine that next month Act and the Maori Party abandon their support for National and decide to get behind a Labour/Greens/Jim Anderton coalition, then ask the Gov-Gen to let them be the new government. That's sort of what has happened here.

In these kind of situations, the Governor-General (GG) of Canada (or for good measure Australia, New Zealand or any of the other Commonwealth countries) has three choices. He or she can: [1] choose to suspend Parliament, basically telling all the MPs to sit in the corner until they can play nice; Or, [2] allow the new coalition to form a government; Or, [3] dissolve Parliament completely and call another elections.

The other day the GG choose to suspend Parliament, effectively throwing Stephen Harper a lifeline. For two reasons, we think that she made a bone-headed and baffling move. Firstly, by suspending Parliament the problem doesn't go away. The opposition seems pretty committed in it's quest to roll the Conservatives, perhaps even more now that Stephen Harper has shown his willingness to hide behind arcane constitutional levers, rather than face his government's impending demise like a grown man. So unless the GG plans to suspend Parliament FOREVER, then she hasn't saved this government, merely unduly postponed the inevitable. After all, the GG will probably end up facing the same choice again in late January when Parliament resumes. Secondly, not only is suspending Parliament useless, it is desperately unprincipled and woefully undemocratic. By suspending Parliament, and letting the Harper government continue without any evidence that the Conservatives still have the confidence of the House of Parliament, the GG, an unelected individual, has strayed dangerously close to the line of picking favourites. Really, the role of the GG is no more than to tick a constitutional box, a figurehead which says 'Yes, there is a government'.

So while we agree that the GG is a muppet, we vehemently disagree on the right way forward for Canada. With our expansive experience in Canadian constitutional affairs (Paul IS a Canadian who fled to NZ and Alex went there once and thought it was neat), we now present our differing views on what the Governor-General SHOULD have done. Let us know who you think is right.

Alex sez - CALL AN ELECTION
I realise, given that Canada just had an election, and that a new election would be Canada's fourth in five years, that I am advocating a position that is difficult, unpopular and some would say damaging to my Canadian street-cred. But just because something is difficult and unpopular, that is not a reason to avoid it if is the right way forward. And I believe it is.

Obviously the Harper government, surviving only due to the good grace and poor decision making of the Governor-General, no longer has any legitimacy in the eyes of the Canadian constitution, and cannot claim to be the constitutionally legitimate leadership of Canada. But my concern is that a coalition, cobbled together out of the disparate elements of the Canadian left and the separatist Bloc, will be something far worse - a government that does not legitimacy in the eyes of the Canadian people.

It is one thing to say that it is the role of the public to elect their representatives to Parliament, and then it is the role of those representatives to form a government, which may take whichever shape those representatives choose. That may fit a formalistic definition of 'voting', but in reality people do not just vote for a person or the party that they represent in a vacuum, but they vote with a wider view as to the shape they would like that government to take. To use a New Zealand example, in 2002 many socially conservative voters, who normally would associate with the National party voted for the small, 'family-values' oriented United Future party. The rationale was that if Labour was to form the Government that year (as looked likely, National were tumbling in the polls) then it was better that the Labour government went into coalition with social conservatives ,rather than the socially liberal Greens.

My point is that this coalition appears to have come from out of left-field, and it is not something that we can claim is in the reasonable contemplation of the ordinary Canadian voter as they made their choice at the ballot box. My guess is that if the only two choices in the election had been 'Conservatives' or 'Liberal + NDP + Bloc Quebecois', then the overall vote for the Conservatives would be much higher, and have allowed them a majority. As it stands, the Canadian people face something completely unexpected, and if the coalition government is allowed to form they face a democratically unpalatable prospect of Stephane Dion, a man who led his party to their worst electoral showing in a century, and who received only 20% of the popular vote, becoming the Prime Minister. At least until May, when the Liberals elect a new leader.

Calling an election will be a ballsy move, that will in all likelihood infuriate the Canadian people, and lead to a disproportionately greater turn-out in the next Parliament for protest parties such as the Greens. But the Canadian people should not be infuriated, they should be pleased that they have a chance to have their say and get a government that they want and expect. If nothing else, it will force Canadian political parties to be clear in explaining who they will work with, and what their coalition demands will be, making sure that a constitutional crisis of this sort never happens again, and that Canadian politics is not about snatching the levers of power, but making sure those levers are being used in a way that is best for ordinary Canadians.

If nothing else, that's a reason for a revote.

Paul sez - INSTALL COALITION GOVERNMENT
Hells ya this prospective coalition government would be a good thing. There are a few reasons why that's true. Let me explain.

For one, a coalition government would mean more stability than any minority government. Because a minority government can fall at any time, things are always kinda on edge whenever Canada has one. The lil pact between the Liberals-NDP coalition and the Bloc entails that there'll be at least 1.5 years of stability.That's what they've formally agreed to. Stability like this is especially desirable in troubled times... like when an economic crisis is going on. The real nightmare would be another election. That kind of instability would be worrisome… I mean, come on, it's only been 7 weeks!! That would be a waste of time and resources when Ottawa needs to be getting stuff done; now, more than ever, Canadians needs a stable and active government. On that point, there's also a degree of moderation that a coalition government would bring. A coalition government won't be able to push through the same sort of crazy unilateral legislation that a 1-party government could. Coalitions create an additional check-and-balance to moderate the actions of the government; that is, this government would need to cater to the policies of both the NDP and the Liberals. Even though this particular coalition government would be left of centre, by having to appease both parties it would be appealing to the sentiments of a wider range of Canadian voters than a government of either party individually. Yay!

Here's another thing to bear in mind: this move by the NDP and Liberals in no way goes against the will of Canadian voters. Here's how the system works: voters elect Parliaments. The elected Members of Parliament, then, form a government. Not the other way around. The voters elect whichever candidate running in their riding will best serve their interests. Nothing about that is changed if the current minority government is replaced with a coalition government; the same elected members still holds the same seats; the same MPs still represent the same riding. It's hard to say that voters vote expecting one party to take office, especially in this case since the last Canadian election was super close. But can we say that voters want whichever party the representative they elect for their riding is a member of to form the government? Sure, but that doesn't change anything. It's the sum of all the ridings in Canada that are important. So the government should be formed by the greatest number of MPs possible that are willing to work together. Traditionally, that's always been 1 party (the party with the most seats). In the current situation, it's the coalition (they, together, control more seats than the Conservatives). We can say that the voters expressed more (implicit) support for a NDP-Liberal coalition government than for a Conservative government. Yay!

And while some of those "boo hiss anti-coalition" naysayers have been postulating that this would be the first step in the break down in Canada (since the Bloc are involved), that's just silly. This Liberal-NDP coalition isn't "anti-Canada"; those wacky Bloc ppl aren't officially part of the coalition, they've just formally agreed to support it. Really, the Bloc is faced with the following choice: which is preferable - a NDP-Liberal coalition government or a Conservative government? Because the Bloc is more left leaning, they see the coalition as the "lesser of the two evils". That's it. No new talk about Quebec separatism because of a possible coalition.

Ultimately, whether or not this coalition is a good or bad things doesn't matter, the precedence of a coalition taking power is of true important. Were this coalition to end up being a 3 stooges act, an election will eventually be called and the people can collectively decide where to go next. But at that stage the Canadian people will have had a taste for something different; they will know what it's like to have a coalition government. This gives them, and the federal parties, more options. That's growth. That's something I can believe in.

Between Iraq and a hard case - Part One: Weapons of mass justification?

2008-12-04T00:08:00.009+13:00

When historians one day are trying to list the three defining historical moments of this decade three will stand out - 9/11, the election of Barack Obama, and George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq. In a way they are all kinda interlinked, the need to root out the 9/11 terrorists was a justification to invade Iraq, and the calamitous fail that was the handling of the post-Saddam, Iraq insurgency was one of the key reasons why Barack Obama, and not H.R Clinton or J.S McCain will be reciting the pledge of allegiance come January 21st. In a desperate attempt to be at the forefront of defining historical moments (and often, getting around to blogging about them after they are so old, they can indeed be defined as history), I have already opined about 9/11 (which Paul D still refers to as the post where Alex showed clips of Comedians crying) and at great length about Barack Obama. Today, to what I expect will create much rejoicing on the streets of Baghdad, it's Iraq's turn to be blogged.

Since 2003, the war in Iraq has led to the loss of thousands of lives, billions of dollars in military spending, shredded relations between America and the Middle East (and Europe), the UN turning a more irrelevant shade of pale and America's ability as a spokesperson for human rights looking about as legitimate as Ron Jeremy extolling the virtues of abstinence. Oh, and Saddam's dead. Not bad for a little war that was only meant to last 6 weeks, and got its very own 'Mission accomplished' party, with its very own banner on an AIRCRAFT CARRIER. Iraq is probably the best ever example of how to win a war, and then make an absolute fail of how to lose the peace. Honestly, did the neo-cons actually believe the US would be greated as 'liberators', that centuries of animosity between Sunni's and Shia's would disappear, leaving them singing 'I got you babe' (Sunni's and Shia's = Sunny and Cher, geddit?) and worshipping at the altar of democracy? The flaws in logic, the holes in the strategy were almost elegant in their exquisite level of suckyness. Like turning up to a Spanish exam with a really cool pen, but having studied for Calculus instead.

But this blog post isn't going to be about lambasting the Bush administration for their epic fuck-up. It isn't even going to be about praising the Bush administration for stumbling upon the right answer to what seemed like certain defeat, in the form of the troop surge of late 2006. It's easy with the benefit of over five years hindsight to criticise. What I want to do is far more controversial, and probably far more suicidal to my attempts to be taken seriously as a 'guy who writes about stuff.' I want to try and justify the invasion. Or at least, show that in a different universe, where everything worked out differently, we might even consider patting W. on the back and buying him a beer.

Please don't stop reading, or switch back to DailyKos or The Standard or TeenHarlot or where ever it is you usually get your internet jollies from. Provided you don't suscribe to the ridiculous and offensive notion that the Iraq war was some sort of master plan by Bush and Cheney to create an American Empire and get some sweet, tasty oil, hear me out. (And if you do suscribe to that ridiculous and offensive notion, click on this link for something else that might interest you.). The primary justification for Iraq was because intelligence said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Given that events of the past 5 years have shown that intelligence was a bit, er, wrong, it seems a bit ludicrous to try and justify Iraq based on this. But we were not to know that in 2003. In 2003, the intelligence suggested that the decision that had to be made was 'given that Saddam Hussein had access to weapons of mass destruction, should the United States intervene to overthrow Saddam before these weapons get used?'

This question cuts to the very heart of the 'Bush Doctrine' (by using the words 'Bush Doctrine' in a sentence, I'm now more qualified to talk on this topic than Sarah Palin), and the idea that certain situations justify pre-emptive military action - attacking an enemy before that enemy attacks YOU. I guess two questions need to be kept in mind;

1) How probable is it that an enemy has weapons of mass destruction?
2) How likely is it that that enemy plans to use it on you?

No-one would say that in cases where an enemy tells you they have a nuke, and plan to drop it on your mother next Saturday, you would be unjustified in blowing up their nuclear facility and their capacity to strike before then. To rule out the idea of pre-emptive military action, to only strike in retalitation if attacked, not only removes your diplomatic options in a dangerous world but also compromises your ability to protect your own citizens.

I understand there needs to be a high threshold, before you invade a sovereign nation and attempt to cast yourself as the moral force and legitimate power. It's not enough to be reasonably sure of the existence of WMD's, you must be sure beyond any reasonable doubt, and also be sure beyond any reasonable doubt that if you do not strike first you will be attacked. We know in 2008, that there were no WMD's in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein was not planning on giving these WMD's to Al Qaeda. But we didn't know that in 2003. In 2003 we believed, given all reasonable intelligence by the very best intelligence agencies in the world, that Saddam Hussein passed a threshold. And so did Bush. So while, Bush deserves his tarnished legacy for a complete and total failure of the peace process, perhaps we should cut him some slack on the war process.

I'd love to be proved wrong on this, either that Bush knew things we didn't or that the intelligence did not suggest othe WMD's were beyond reasonable doubt. The only thing cooler than making sad attempts to justify my support for the invasion when I was 15, while my friends were buying 'Good Bush, Bad Bush' shirts and hiding them from their parents, would be to write one of those ever-so-trendy blog posts screaming 'BSUH IZ A WAR CRINIMAL LOL!!1!!'

A second, and maybe more important question, would be to ask ' Well, even if there weren't any WMD's, is the war justified because they got rid of Saddam Hussein?' It's a really interesting question, and one that serves up many moral conundrums about military intervention to protect human rights in general. But as it's 1:38am and I have a disgracefully busy day ahead of me tomorrow, it will have to wait for my next blog post.

Great Expectations

2008-12-02T13:44:00.001+13:00

“The best things in life are unexpected - because there were no expectations.” (Eli Khamarov)

Like the weather, too much depends on expectations. Expectations rule out lives. Expectations are bad things. We should regulate or limit our expectations as much as possible. I know that I’m kinda swimming against the current here; the big secret to never-ending happiness according that (stupid) book “The Secret” is to expect that the things you want to happen will happen. (Sorry to ruin it for you, but now you don’t need to waste your time or money on it. Yay!)

So why are expectations - your beliefs about what will likely happen – bad? Well for one thing they regulate our behaviour. If you expect something is going to happen, you’ll act differently. You’ll act differently than were we to expect it to not happen, or if we were to have no expectations about it either way. So, for example, if you expect that hottie you picked up at the bar will do anal, you’ll probably act differently when you get together than how you’d act had you not had that expectation. But the adverse way expectations impact our behaviour is only half the problem. Expectations are so often the source of our suffering. When the things we desire don’t come to fruition, it sucks: If you expected something to happen, and it doesn’t, you can find yourself dishearten. And that’s not even the worst part. The worst part is the net result of when what you expected to happen failed to occur coupled with the way your behaviour was influenced. You acted like an idiot – you trotted around expecting certain things will come your way when they never did.

Sure, sometimes expectations will come true. And that can be the source of pure glee. But that’s not enough to offset to badness that can come from misplaced expectations. After all, you’ll still be joyful when things you would have expected come about even if you never expected them… but you won't endure the same suffering if they don’t come about and you had you never expected them. Moreover you wouldn’t have acted like an idiot either! So the safe bet is to minimize your expectations.

You might be thinking “Gee, Paul, you make an excellent point. But sometimes my behaviour - modified from my expectations - makes it more likely that those expectations will be realized. So can’t expectations still be a good thing?” Whether or not your expectations make it more or less likely that that which you expect to happen will happen is irrelevant. You shouldn’t want to influence people and their actions in such a way. Even though it’s nice to get what you want, you should respect everyone individual agency – their individual ability and right to decide what to do and how to contribute to the outcome of a situation. (Things are different, of course, if they actively seek your in put in making their decisions.)

Having said all that, it’s important to realize exactly what I’m saying here (and what I’m distinctively not saying). I’m not being pessimistic here; I’m not advocating negative expectations instead of positive ones (e.g. instead of expecting that mommy will remember your birthday this year, expecting that she won’t remember). That would be pessimistic. That’s not what I’m saying. Instead, what I am saying, is that you shouldn’t have expectations about things either way (e.g. instead of expecting that mommy will remember your birthday this year, have no expectations about her behaviour – don’t think that she will; and don’t think that she won’t). This is the liberating view I’m espousing here. 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.

I Judge You, and That’s Okay

2008-11-29T15:02:00.003+13:00

“When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.” (Wayne Dyer)

Some people run around saying things like “don’t you judge me!” But I think they’re wrong to say such things. By that I mean I think we do have the right or privilege to judge others. I’m going to explain why you’re in the clear to judge those around you.

On a daily basis we deal with a wide assortment of people. The various people we encounter act certain ways; how they act is up to them. They sometimes do stupid, distasteful, wrong, bad, or unacceptable things. When such things happen to us, or even if we witness their occurrence, we have a judgmental reaction – which isn’t a bad thing. This natural reaction is simply an evaluation of the situation based on our own standards; we compare what happened to what we think should have happened. If you catch Jimmy making out with Suzy, when you know that Kathy believes her and Jimmy are in a monogamous relationship, you have a reaction which consists of an evaluation of how the situation measures up to your standards; you asses whether or not his behaviour meets your threshold of acceptable behaviour. Your reaction also consist of a reassessment of Jimmy and how you view the relationship you have with him.

So when you encounter these situations and generate your reactions, what are you to do? Express your reaction?? Or bite your tongue?? While it’s fine for you choose to bite your tongue, you needn’t feel obligated to do so. That is, you have the right or privilege to express your assessment of the situation. So when you say something like “Jimmy, you jerk, you shouldn’t be making out with Suzy!” all you’re doing is saying “According to my understanding of the situation, the course of action Jimmy elected to take is at odds with my personal standards of acceptable behaviour for that situation. As such I now regard my relationship with Jimmy differently.” Notice that when you judge someone you aren’t so much saying something about him, but, rather, something about yourself (and how you view your relationship with him). When you boil it down, you're really just making a claim about yourself: a claim about what you consider to be acceptable behaviour. When you judge Jimmy you’re expressing: (a) the fact that your personal stanadards dictate that someone in a position like his should have acted differently that the behaviour deemed acceptable by Jimmy and, (b) you consider your relationship with Jimmy to be altered in some way as a result of (a). To say that you shouldn’t express such things about yourself is to say that you shouldn’t describe your own views about what you consider to be acceptable behaviour. And to say people should be allowed to express such things about themselves is just silly.

What you and Jimmy (or whoever) do next is up to both of you. He needn’t give any weight to what you expressed if he doesn’t want to (since he has his own standards of acceptable behaviour). Nor does he need to be concerned with how you view your relationship with him. (But, if he values your relationship, he probably should be concerned with your judgment.) So, ultimately, it’s not a bad thing when you “judge” someone since, when you do so, you’re simply making a descriptive claim about yourself and your relationship to those in it.

Lastly, there will be some situations where you might be best off biting your tongue and not sharing your views. But such situations are rare and the reasons for biting your tongue will be prudential ones. But, even then, you’re still allowed to make descriptive espressions about your views. (Again, that’s all you’re really doing when you judge people.) 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.

Wrong Laws.

2008-11-27T08:38:00.011+13:00

For those of you who are fans of my usual glib approach to life, the universe and everything - I apologise, because this isn't really one of those posts. Every now and then an article appears in a newspaper that not only infuriates me, but makes me physically ill that someone was paid to make racist, debased and dangerous remarks in a format that will be read and considered by hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. Michael Laws, former National MP, current mayor of Whanganui and all-round muppet, wrote an article in last weeks Sunday Star-Times that not only fits that previous description, but may have set a new low for gutter 'columnism' in any newspaper, ever.

The article was entitled 'The Liberal Shame' and if you want to read it, follow this link. But I'd strongly discourage you from reading it, because in reading it you would be giving his views a modicum of legitimacy that they not deserve. Laws's rants about the general inferiority of 'the brown underclass', declares that there were certain types of people who shouldn't breed (and if we cut through Laws's subtext, these people are generally brown and poor) and states, with all the hubris of a man who has spent three years in parliament AND got to be on Celebrity Treasure Island TWICE, that the 'liberal' approach to crime and raising families and building a society has failed. That he holds this opinion and deems fit to air it in the marketplace of ideas is bad enough, but in making his remarks through the prism of Nia Glassie's torture and murder, Laws shows a remarkably twisted propensity for cynical opportunism.

But I realise in making this criticism, particulary with the degree of vehemence, I will be amongst a very small minority of New Zealanders. The sad tale of 3-year old Nia Glassie, beaten, tortured, swung from the clothesline, put in the dryer has haunted and revulsed New Zealanders in a way that I have seen very few high-profile murder cases do. Many New Zealanders feel hatred and contempt for Nia's killers, and Laws in this respect was providing a summary of these views, albeit in a way that is spiteful, racist and socially poisonous.

I share this contempt for Nia's killers, I do not know how I could not. But I fail to see, as many of my fellow countrymen see, and as Michael Laws saw fit to publish, that the Nia Glassie case is proof that our society (or at least the poor, brown bits of it) has become more violent, and this 'extra violence' is the result of namby-pamby 'liberal' (say the word liberal with an extra helping of contempt for good measure) policy-makers, who have 'mollycoddled' violent youths and Maori society to the point where they share Nia's blood on their hands. Firstly, I maintain, but with an increasingly less secure conviction, that the recent spate of child abuse cases in the media are not inexorable proof of a society that is getting more violent. Of course there are more cases of such abuse appearing in the media in 2008 than in 1968, that's the inevitable result of a total increase in population. But a sudden spate of child abuse cases does not suggest to me that the underclass woke up one morning and decided to get more violent. It suggests that there have been a series of hideous coincidences throughout 2008. Or to be more cynical, it shows that media outlets -realising that stories about child abuse sell more papers - are getting more efficient at rooting these stories out.

But even if I am wrong with my previous point, and I'm not even certain myself as to whether I am correct, I'd argue that if society has 'broken down' in New Zealand's poorest, urban areas this definitely should not be seen as a failure of a system of 'liberal' policies. What seems more likely is that society is getting more violent not because the policies have been too liberal, because they have not been liberal enough. When you have a society that says that it is ok that people who are poor and the children of people who are poor can be denied opportunity because if they are poor, it is possibly a proxy for them being inferior (or worse, lazy) then of course you have widely disproportionate inequalities. And when you have a poorly educated 'underclass', with limited resources and no safety net provided by government to give them a competive go in life, and when you slash funding to groups that dispense advice and monitor first time parents then it follows that people who grew up in a culture of violence as a way of discipline will subject their children to the same abuse they suffered. When lobby groups call for the unfettered ability of parents to raise their children in whatever way they see fit, then it follows that more parents will see that what is unconcsionable abuse in our eyes as just showing loving and necessary discipline to their own children.

If a tendency towards 'more child abuse' in New Zealand society exists, and is not just the result of a few horrific coincidences then the people that have blood on their hands are not those who believe in 'education' and 'being politically correct'. The people who have blood on their hands are people like Ruth Richardson and Jenny Shipley, who slashed social welfare in New Zealand in the early 1990's, or people like Laws himself, who fail to see that screaming 'STERILISE THE POOR, AND DEATH PENALTY TO CHILD KILLERS' misses all sorts of points, most notably that you cannot solve a problem unless you are prepared to adress the underlying causes, rather than just create a media panic when the symptons of wider social failure appear in the cold, hard form of Nia Glassie's dead body.

It would be laughable, if it were not so reprehensible, that Laws attempts to play anthropologist, limiting the problem to that of a brown underclass, and littering his turgid dross of a column with overtones of racism - declaring that we have to stop getting all culturally sensitive and letting Maori think they can solve their own problems. It is true that almost all of the defendants in these cases have surnames like Kahui and Pailegutu, not Smith or Jones. And is true that in some Pacific Island cultures and maybe even in the Maori culture, a greater level of physical discipline is considered more culturally acceptable, which flies in the face of the rights of all children to be protected from harm. But what is not true is the brown parents are worse than white parents. It speaks volumes for the Anglosupremacist attitudes that pervades Laws peice that he begins by describing the underclass as a brown underclass and ends by describing it as feckless and stupid. It seems for Laws, and more sadly for numerous other New Zealand that 'brown' and 'stupid' and 'brown' and 'violent' are interchangeable adjectives. 'Poor' and 'uneducated' is perhaps more fitting, as this is a problem that needs to be solved with changing cultural norms in Pacific Island communities that child violence is not ok, and being willing to pump public resources into ensuring that at-risk families recieve government help.

Laws thinks the answer is forced sterilisation and the death penalty. For a man who spent much of 2008 declaring that the law that says you cannot smack your children for the purposes of correction, or that to save water resources showers were limited to 15 minutes was an overly invasive intrusion into private life by a nanny state , this is a quite remarkable turnaround. But it is a turnaround conducted with a nod to the inherent superiority of white people, and with a nod to the white and wealthy constitutents that elected him mayor of Whanganui. And it is a turnaround that while attempting to adress a very real and very worrying problem in New Zealand, arrives at almost the complete opposite to what is needed. He talks of the liberal shame, but he advocates a cynical, muddle-headed, disgraceful and illiberal sham. Shame on him.

Alex

The Prostitute and the Porno Star

2008-11-24T00:20:00.003+13:00

“I am disappointed that my parents didn't give birth to a porn star” (Rufus Wainwright )

What’s the difference between a hooker and an adult entertainment actor? No, this isn’t the setup of a bad joke but a genuine question. Some might think this question is moot in a country where both are legal or both illegal, but I think there’s more to it than that (e.g. a moral difference). Let’s see if we can figure it out.

So, what do we mean when we talk about prostitution? Well, to keep things simple, let’s say prostitution consists of: a sexual act, participated in by at least 2 individuals, where at least 1 participant is financially compensated for his participation. And what about pornography? Well, that’s always been real tricky to define. US Justice Potter Stewart more or less gave up on trying to define it and just went with the now infamous “I know it when I see it” line. But let’s shoot for a little more. Let’s run with the following: pornography is a recorded sexual act, participated in by at least 2 individuals, where at least 1 participant is financially compensated for his participation; and where the recorded product is distributed to others. Note the similarity between these definitions, in addition to the crucial difference: that the services of the prostitute do not create a tangible product while the services of the porn star do. (Also note that this is a narrow conception of porn. It leaves out, for instance, the kind of porn depicted in such things as Playboy. But this is okay given the intent of what we’re talking about here.)

This definition of porn excludes the prostitute who fulfills his client’s fantasy of being filmed. This is excluded because, even though the act is recorded in this case, it doesn't count as pornography so long as the product never distributed. But were the client or the prostitute, whoever retains possession of the recording, to distribute it for consumption by others, then they are in fact participants in pornography. It’s also important to bear in mind that someone doesn’t need to consent to be a participant in pornography – a sex act can be recorded and distributed without the knowledge or consent of the participants; or someone can consent to having his participation in a sex act recorded but not consent to the distribution of that recording (a la Paris Hilton). Either way, porn is what they did. But, either way, let's set these cases aside. (Lastly, I also want to exclude those secret lil sex tape people make and genuinely keep private. I’m unsure what to call such things; but it doesn’t seem accurate to put them under the rubric of pornography… it seems as if they should count as something else…)

Anyway, so what IS the difference between the porn star and the prostitute? Well, when you boil it down, it might seem that the only things pornography has that prostitution lacks is: (1) the presence of active recording instruments; and (2) the distribution of the product of that recording equipment. If that’s the only difference between porn and prostitution, it’s not a difference that amounts to much. It’s certainly not enough to make a moral distinction between the two. And maybe this is why a lot of folks treat them both as having the same moral standing. But here’s a reason to think that we ought to regard them differently:

Prostitutes remain the proprietor of their commodity; porn stars do not. We can describe the actions of the prostitute as offering a service that doesn’t result in a tangible product; the same cannot be said of the porn star. We can describe the actions of the porn star as a service, but one that’s instrumental in the creation of a tangible product (something that’s distributed to others for consumption). That product, once distributed, is then out in the world and beyond the control of the porn star. Porn can’t be undone. The Internet exacerbates this since, once something is out there, it’s virtually impossible to regain control of it (say, to destroy it) and it probably won’t ever go away. So we can say that porn stars necessarily lose control of that which they produce through their work. The same can’t be said about prostitutes. Sure, a pimp might be “in control” of a streetwalker; or a hooker might lose control of a situation with his client. But such occurrences don’t always happen. Autonomous persons can consent to being a prostitute and always be in control. Such a prostitute, we can say, is always in control of his commodity; it isn’t necessary that the prostitute loses control of his service, but it is a necessary part of being a porn start that he loses control of the tangible end product that his services contribute to.

So the porn star seems worse off. The prostitute can walk away and it’s prima facie less likely that her time as a prostitute will “come back to haunt her”. 15 years down the road the kid of a porn star could stumble upon her mom’s video series online. A similar occurrence seems far less likely for the prostitute (the kid meeting a former client of her mom seems more like a plotline from some Latin Soap Opera). So is this enough to ground a moral distinction?

If anything, it seems as if this “worse off” status of porn stars gives more force to the notion that porn stars suffer “participant harms” (i.e. harms that are brought on by their participation in porno). So here one could say that the lose of control over the end product to which the porn star contributes is harmful to him, despite the fact that he consented to participating in porn and agreed to give up any control over the end product. This might seem like a stretch. But consider this: there are other things we can't do (morally or legally) irregardless of whether or not those involved consented. Assisted suicide is an excellent example. Euthanasia, like pornography, consent isn't the issue. So some of our hangups about assisted suicide might carry over and give us reason to consider pornography morally impermissible. If this holds up, in the end, it appears that we might have grounds for believing that prostitution is less morally problematic than pornography -- the business of Larry Flint is as morally dubious as that of Dr. Kevorkian. 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.

As demanded - a word on Kittens.

2008-11-21T21:29:00.005+13:00

Recently, Paul D ran a survey. This survey asked what would the ever-tolerant, long-suffering reader(s) of A Word on Failure like to see me blog about next. With an enthusiastic response of 12 participants, an overwhelming majority suggested that they would like to see me blog about Kittens. So despite the fact that the Congo has decided to collapse on itself, Barack Obama is thinking of making Hillary Clinton the person-in-charge-of-making-the-rest-of-the-world-like-America and New Zealand's rugby league team are world champions today's post shall be about my own personal opinions on the offspring of cats.

It's a good thing I like Kittens. They are cute, they play with wool (or yarn), they are soft to touch and nice to pet. Recently a kitten was born in Western Australia that had TWO heads, and I didn't think 'AARGH mutant' - I thought 'Awwww, it can miaow out of both its mouths'. (See for yourselves).

On the other hand I also like meat (I realise this is an unconvincing segue, but bear with me). Ham sandwiches, bacon, kebabs - it's all good really. I realise that on the whole, humans eating meat is bad for the planet (it takes a whole lot more land to grow cows than grain, which means that land is being used inefficiently PLUS having cows burping, farting and polluting is worse for the environment than a whole lot of grain grown in a field. Grain doesn't burp, or fart or cause global warming. It just exists.) And, in a victory for the forces of obviousness, eating meat is also bad for the animals. I don't want to know the number of cows that get thrown out every day at a single Burger King because they make far more burgers than they need. We will kill and eat the mothers of a litter/nest/whetever of baby animals just to gain some short term fufillment and fleeting sense of yum. But despite knowing that eating meat is bad, its also tasty. So while I will freely conceed that I am a worse person than someone committed to a vegetarian diet as of yet I have been unable to ween myself off the idea of spearing chunks of hot,dead animals into my mouth.

Where am I going with this? Well, although I love the taste of meat, there are limited number of animals I would eat. I would eat a sheep. I would eat a cow. I would eat a pig. (But I would not eat green eggs and ham, I do not like it Sam-I-am). But I would not eat a horse. Horses are for riding, not for snacking. And nor would I eat a kitten. Kittens are cute, and are for petting, not for baking into a pie.

But even if I wanted to eat a kitten, I'm not sure if I could in New Zealand. My friends would shun me, and would no longer come around to my house for dinner parties. A local newspaper may even take a picture of me, and tell people that I am unstable. After all, eating a kitten is just objectively wrong, isn't it?

And yet, I think my most vivid encounter with feelings of cultural superiority as a child was being told by my Year 3 teacher (I think it is the equivalent of 2nd Grade) that 'they eat dogs and cats in Asia, you know'. I was horrified and appalled. Eating pets seemed disgusting, unclean and savage. And when I was also told that 'Muslim people don't eat pork', I couldn't work this out either. Everyone ate pork. Pork was yummy, especially with apple. And pigs were things that were just begging to be eaten, from one gross little thing that basically existed to consume the family compost, we were able to extract delicious ham and pork and bacon.

The animals that different societies have chosen to eat seem to have developed along culturally specific lines. One man's household companion is another man's shishkebab. There doesn't seem to be any way to determine which animals should be eaten, and which should not - our own Western society eats animals big and small, feathered and furred, wild and domesticated. Even if we extend this idea away from the eating of animals to the usage of animals in general - a popular Chinese aphrodiasiac is ground-up rhino horn, a practice that again is wholly alien to how Westerners concieve of the rhino, as a beautiful, wild beast to be protected. So with no innate objective rationale to determine what animals are ok to eat, and what animals are not, the best (and still unsatisfactory) conclusion we can reach is that 'all animals are equal - but, in a culturally subjective sense, some are more equal than others'. (apologies to George Orwell)

So I guess my post on kittens isn't really about kittens at all. If we distil it, this post is about whales. My country, New Zealand, is one of the world leaders in the fight against the hunting of whales for food. And on the surface, this seems a decent fight to have. Whales are awesome, they sing, they splash and are the focus for some of the coolest myths and legends of many cultures. But just because my culture finds whales kinda awesome shouldn't be a reason to impose our culture's values upon the Nordic and Japanese cultures. Provided that whales are being hunted in a way that is sustainable and will not lead to the extermination of the species New Zealand's argument basically amounts to a kid petulantly stamping it's foot and screaming 'BUT I DON'T WANT YOU TO DO THAT' without any sufficiently well-grounded moral or economic philosophy to support an arbitrary distinction between why eating beef is good, and eating Pods (see what I did there) is wrong.

If someone can give me a reason why the animal rights claims of whales are superior to the animal rights claims of a sheep, I'd love to hear it - because like I said, whales are awesome. But until then does anyone know a cafe where there do a real good blubber and eggs?

Alex

Bitchdom

2008-11-14T12:41:00.001+13:00

“Well, I'd love to stay and chat, but you're a total bitch.” (Stewie, 'Family Guy')

In my last post I used the following example: a girlfriend who tells her significant other that she loves him, but goes around kissing other people. I said such a person is a bitch. I thought this was a good example for the point I was trying to make because, I thought, it was an obvious and uncontroversial truth (her status as bitch). But I was, apparently, wrong. In one of the comments I received on that post someone suggested that she might not be a bitch. I thought this was an unusual claim, so I thought it might be worthwhile to talk about what it means to be a bitch. This discussion, like my previous post about “bullshit”, kind of serves as means for presenting the problems generated by how non-traditional terms get into our everyday vocabulary and affect how we’re able to communicate. And even though the online urban dictionary is helpful when you get called a manicorn at the bar, ambiguity in what we mean when we say something is often the root of social problems.

First of all, I should point out that I conceptualized this girl (and her boyfriend) in a specific way: your typical pair of people in a monogamous relationship. They aren't swingers or anything. They (or at least the boyfriend) has a reasonable expectation of faithfulness. Having said that, like many of our words, bitch has many meanings. For instance 'bitch' does means "a female dog". But, clearly, that's not what I mean when I talk about the girlfriend who makes out with people other than her boyfriend. You might also use the term affectionately: "yea, she's my bitch." But, again, that's not what I mean here. I don't want to confuse you, so I want to be clear that I'm talking abut a specific sense of the word bitch. I think the way I used bitch in describing the girlfriend is the typical or primary usage of the term. I'll say a bit more about alternate usages later, but I want to first explain how I understand its primary meaning.

A bitch describes a girl whose behavior is harsh or mean to at least one other person, or a girl who has (on at least one occasion) a disposition that reflects a harsh or mean attitude towards someone; a girl has to be bitchy towards someone in order to be a bitch. She can also be a bitch generally, but that's just being a bitch to all most everyone. So being a bitch (in at least this sense) is a bad thing. The target of her bitchiness doesn't always need to be aware that (s)he is being treated poorly. Nor does the bitch, or anyone else, need to be aware of the fact that she’s acting like a bitch. So being a bitch isn't really a subjective thing; can be a bitch without anyone ever recognizing that fact about her. So why is the girlfriend in the example a bitch (in at least this sense)? Well, it seems to me that she's a bitch because she’s being deceitful and acting in such a way that would likely hurt her significant other (and, typically, we shouldn’t do things that would be harmful to those we say we love). Whether or not her boyfriend finds out that she goes around making out with other people is irrelevant, she's still a bitch in virtue of her disregard for the wellbeing of her boyfriend. She, it seems to me, is someone who has a neglectful disregard for the wellbeing of her significant other – such a disposition, I would say, counts as one that harsh or mean. Hence, she’s a bitch.

What about when you call a guy a bitch? That seems to necessarily imply something different; or at the least something more. Here’s what I mean: when you call a guy a bitch, even if you say it to express the same thing as when you'd say it to a girl, you seem to being saying something else as well. Here bitch seems to carry the implicit implication that he doesn't measure up as a man. Similar sorts of gender specific terms do the same sort of thing. For example (and I’ll admit that this might not be a good example) were you to call a girl a dickhead you’re implicitly suggesting that she doesn't measure up as a woman. The male version of bitch might be "asshole", although that may be a gender neutral term. I find it interesting that there are gender specific terms; but I’m not sure what that says about our language, society, or inter-gender relations. But maybe I’m on my own thinking there something interesting about our colloquial usage of slang and derogatory terminology. At the very least the ambiguity that comes with new words detracts from our ability to communicate effectively. 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.

Left out.

2008-11-14T10:03:00.011+13:00

Well, I'm back. Being a law student in exam mode meant I had no scheduled time to clutter up the internets with my peculiar brand of bitter invective, substandard grammar and prediliction for terrible puns. I've missed writing, because since my self-imposed exile some quite seismic events have happened - Barack Obama's kids are getting a puppy, New Zealander's are getting a conservative government AND Wendy's have this really sweet new burger with THREE types of meat. While I realise that the people have spoken in Paul's ill-advised poll, and with a phenomenal turn-out of 12, have spoken overwhelmingly in favour of me blogging about kittens. I will, therefore blog about kittens..but not just yet. Today, I want to blog about something every more meek, helpless and in more desperate need of some warm milk and a cuddle than a Kitten.

In the whole excitement of Obama v McCain v Ms. WasillaWackjob, I sorta forgot that my own country, New Zealand, had an election too. In my defence, it was quite a forgettable campaign - while the Republicans were accusing Barack Obama of hanging out with terrorists and letting an unlicensed plumber improvise their policy on Israel, here in Noo Zillund, the most exciting thing about our campaign was ACT leader Rodney Hide's yellow jacket.

But it was still quite a shock to wake up on November the 9th and remember that Helen Clark is no longer the Prime Minister (or even the leader of the opposition), that Winston Peters had been banished to whatever swamp him and his racist party crawled out of...and that after 9 years of being under a broadly left-leaning Labour government, New Zealanders had opted overwhelmingly for the conservative styles of John Key's National Party (supported by a one man 'United' Future party, and a further right ACT party - which included a 70-year old Roger Douglas and a crazy man who spent $250 000 of his own money fighting restrictions on campaign spending). To judge by the comments left by pro-National supporters on the stuff.co.nz website, the next few years will be defined by a railing against 'dole-bludgers, single mothers, hippies, and peoples who ain't Kiwi'. Urgh. Oh yeah, and they want to privatize prisons.

The left were administered a good-old fashioned spanking on Saturday night. In no way this was a surprise, polls were predicting a major defeat for the Labour party for well over a year now. But whats more troubling than the election of a National-led government, and the ascendancy of conservatism in New Zealand has been the response of Labour supporters to their defeat. Taking heed from an article in the Melbourne Herald sun that damned New Zealand's election choice as been as 'reasoned as a dead slug', the default position of many Labour supporters has been to decry an election won because the voters were bored, wanted a 'change' without caring what form that change took, and simply were too ignorant to realise what they hell they were getting themselves into. To hear some disgruntled Labourites speak is to imagine that the public were determined to vote National and John Key could have been on TV the day before the election eating a baby and it would not have made any difference. Not only is this viewpoint offensive to half the country and who did not vote for Labour, but it is symptomatic of a wider failure on behalf of the New Zealand left to make a convincing case to the NZ public, and reflects an intellectual arrogance in the inherent superiority of leftwingism, to the extent that it alienates and undermines the average voter.

And it's especially troubling because New Zealander's didn't go to the polls last Saturday and issue a vote of protest against a goverment they felt agreed with their conception of beliefs and values but weren't governing well enough. I would argue that a majority of New Zealander's went into the polling booth and ticked National, because they believed the conservatism espoused by the National party was a better fit for the way they would like their country to be.

The majority of New Zealanders believe that the principle of 'equality of opportunity' is a principle that means anyone can achieve anything they want to, if they work hard enough. John Key, the man who went from a state House, to Merrill Lynch and now to the top floor of the Beehive is the living embodiment of this. People like myself, and others who put far far more effort into making the case for 'liberal progressive' values than I do, argue that the tag of equality of opportunity must be complemented by the idea that the lottery of birth forms a major barrier to acheiving opportunity - that the son of a doctor has more chance of being a doctor (or a lawyer) than the son of the hospital janitor. John Key's ability to rise out of poverty should be lauded, but not used as a positive argument in the case against welfare and government support, and the more compelling argument does not focus on the fact John Key succeeded but on the fact that there were thousands of others who were not John Key, and unable to overcome the barriers, of lack of finances, of lack of job opportunity networks, of geographical proximity to role models, that were placed in their way through no fault of their own.

They are other major issues, swirling around in the election campaign, that put me, and other liberals, at odds with the zeitgest of the nation. The battle over the survival of the Maori seats was not couched in attempts to provide the right of self-determination to our indigenous people, but in the poisonous rhetoric of 'special rights' for one group over another. Crime remains seen as the outcome of moral badness, not the inevitable result of gross and increasing social and economic inequalities, and something that needs to be adressed at the underlying economic causes. Smacking your children is seen as an inherent right of parenthood, and attempts to make the smacking of children illegal was seen as an attempt to make criminals out of good parents, and not an attempt to drag the ability to define the difference between a 'corrective smack' and 'abuse' away from the arcane, precedential and slow-to-react judiciary to a police force with a better ability to gauge what is acceptable in the present day. The banning of lightbulbs that provide an inefficient environmental clusterfuck, was not seen as a valid way to combat climate change, but another example of government as an overbearing nanny that did not trust in the rationality of its subjects.

That's why when I hear a Labour or Green or a supporter of anyone left decrying their fellow National-voting New Zealanders as idiots, I cringe. Because calling people idiots is not a good way to win their support. More broadly it shows that the left has fallen into a belief in the inherent superiority of their ideas to the extent that the onus should not fall on them to justify their position - after all, social welfare is JUST GOOD. Social Welfare may be a good thing, as may the banning of smacking, the retention of the Maori seats etc. But anytime a government policy requires the removal of a right or a freedom from people, or even alters the status quo, the onus must be on those who believe in the change to prove to others why that change is a good thing.

Labour failed to do that in 2008. But that doesn't mean that Labour needs to lurch to the right, and try and capture National's supporters (in the way that National lurched to the left, adopting a whole lot of Labour's policies that seemed politically sexy). But it means that the New Zealand left shouldn't flee to the idealogical trenches, abandon large swathes of the New Zealand electorate as retards, and play poker amongst themselves while dreaming of moving to Amsterdam. National was elected overwhelmingly because its overarching ideals were more appealing. We've got to spend the next three years finding out why that electorate rejected the ideals of progressive liberalism, and how we can make the case more convincing. The next three years in opposition, offers Labour a chance for renewal to look at some stuff that Norman Kirk wrote and return to their core beliefs. And it offers media outlets a chance to make puns like 'Key's rusty', or 'Dunne Deal'.

Hey, and Winston won't be spewing bile about Asians. It's not all bad.

A Puzzle For Your Thoughts

2008-11-02T23:49:00.003+13:00

"To almost everyone, it is perfectly clear and obvious what should be done. The difficulty is that these people seem to divide almost evenly on the problem, with large numbers thinking that the opposing half is just being silly." (Robert Nozick)

Consider the following situation:

You walk into a room and are presented with 2 boxes; one made of glass and the other of cardboard. While you can’t tell what’s inside the cardboard box, you can clearly see $100 in the glass box. You’re told by the room’s attendant that you’ve got a choice to make. You can either: take what’s in the cardboard box only, or take what’s in both boxes. But, before making your choice, the attendant also says that “the predictor” has already predicted your decision. He tells you that the predictor has a virtually perfect track record – for however long “the predictor” and the attendant have been running this game, and it’s been going on for a while, the prediction has almost always been right. The attendant also tells you that IF “the predictor” predicted that you would pick just the cardboard box, he put $1,000,000 in it. But, IF “the predictor” predicted that you’d pick both boxes, he’d put a turnip in the cardboard box. So what do ya do? Just go with the cardboard box (call that choice ‘one-boxing’)? Or grab both boxes (call that ‘two-boxing’)?

Here’s why you might think you should one-boxing: “the predictor” has a nearly perfect track record for predicting what people in this situation will do. So, if you just go with the cardboard box, it’s pretty likely that he’d have predicted that and placed $1,000,000 in it. So if you were to one-box you’d likely end up with $1,000,000. Whereas if you were to two-box, he, surely, would have predicted that and placed a turnip in the cardboard box instead. So if you two-box you’re likely to end up with $100 plus a turnip (yuck). Since you prefer $1,000,000 over $100-and-a-turnip, you should one-box.

But, on the other hand, here’s why you might two-box: Look, “the predictor” made his prediction before you’ll make your decision (in fact he made his prediction before you even entered the room). So, regardless of what he thinks you’ll do, it’s already a fact that there’s either $1,000,000 in the cardboard box or a turnip. Nothing you do at this point will change that. So you should just two-box because your choices boil down to this: the turnip in the cardboard (if he predicted you’d two-box) plus $100 (from the glass box) or $1,000,000 (if he predicted you’d one-box) plus $100. In other words, your possible outcomes are: $100-and-a-turnip or $1,000,100. Either way, you’re $100 better off if you two-box. Therefore, you should two-box.

So what would YOU do? Are you a one-boxer? Or a two-boxer? Post your answer (and rationale, if you want) in a comment!

This scenario is known as Newcomb’s Problem; some have argued that it’s essentially the same thing as the famous Prisoner’s Dilemma, while others maintain that they’re totally different. Regardless, thought, this is a classic paradox. By that I mean it’s a philosophical paradox. A philosophical paradox is a little different than what we mean when we talk about paradoxes colloquially. After all, it might seem “paradoxical” when your girlfriend says she loves you but goes around making out with other people. But that’s not genuinely paradoxical (really, she’s just a bitch). Something is philosophically paradoxical if there are two persuasive arguments that have contradictory conclusions (like above), or an argument which contradicts and baffles our intuitions (like the Traveler’s Dilemma). When thinking about paradoxes, you end up running circles around in your reasoning process. I think they’re interesting, fun, and often shake the foundations of our beliefs. But maybe I’m on my own thinking there something worth talking about here. 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.