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

“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

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

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

“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.

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

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!

"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.