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

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?

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?

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

“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.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A Woman's Place

“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.

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.