Luna

Jim Mora interviewed Alan Gibbs this afternoon, in what was a bizarre and, at times, uncomfortable discussion.
Apart from finding that the world is, according to Mr Gibbs, terribly underpopulated, and that everything that has ever gone wrong is the fault of "the socialists" (whoever they are, evidently they were the last Labour government), the overwhelming message was that if Alan could do it, anyone can.  And if we don't, and if we can't blame the socialists, it must be entirely our own fault.
I didn't sit there and wonder why I my success is yet to match Alan's, I just wondered why anyone would give his political and philosophical views any air time at all.

Smashing Pumpkins - Siamese Dream, 1993

To Sir With Love

In today's NZ Herald, Rodney Hide has written an opinion piece called "Time for PM to revoke Sir Douglas' knighthood"

Despite usually being wrong and generally only half thought out, Rodney Hide's opinion pieces are generally worth a read through because they are thought-provoking.  Also, given the ongoing sideshow that is the ACT party, I wondered initially whether he was referring to Roger Douglas.  Turns out I wasn't the only one, in the comments "Andrew Johnson" suggests the same thing.  Turns out he wasn't suggesting this at all, though in my opinion such action would be deserved.

This bit here turns up fairly early on in the piece:

The Prime Minister made a good call returning titled honours to New Zealand. I understand Sir and Dame. The letters PCNZM and DCNZM mean nothing to me.

I understand that the principle difference is the use of the honorific "Sir" or "Dame".  We have always recognised achievement, and the changes over the previous twenty years or so have included who awards the honour and whether a title is or is not granted.  Whatever else happens, people get to add a whole lot of fairly meaningless (to people who are unfamiliar with them) letters after their name.

The knight that Rodney Hide suggests is stripped of his knighthood is Douglas Graham, who as a director of Lombard Finance was convicted of breaching the Securities Act by making untrue statements, under the strict liability provisions of the Act.  I can not condone his actions.

For me this is tricky territory.  The use of honorifics such as Sir, Dame, Lady, Lord etc. is hopelessly outdated and cringe-inducing.  So while I support the process of formally recognising our great achievers, I'd like to see the whole honours system updated.

Once an honour is bestowed upon someone, there must be an excellent and compelling reason to revoke it.  Douglas Graham received his KNZM for services as a Minister of the Crown and as a Member of Parliament.  His work as Treaty Negotiations was, to the best of my knowledge, difficult and done well.  His actions that brought about his conviction under the Securities Act are completely independent of his work as a Minister and MP.  If, hypothetically, his KNZM was awarded for services to business, then there might be grounds to consider stripping him of it.

Lulu - To Sir With Love 7", 1967

Tina Arena - Songs of Love and Loss, 2007

Beds Are Burning

Woe is me, Ngati Whatua might have some land that used to be theirs returned to them as part of a Treaty settlement.  The locals are upset, because it is better to live near a target than to live next to (horrors) brown people.
Peter Garrett said it almost a quarter of a century ago in the best Australian album ever (Diesel and Dust) - "It belonged to them, let's give it back

Losing My Religion

I'm constantly fascinated in people's belief in, and reverence of, money.  It seems to be some form of religion.
"Economic grounds" are used to justify all sorts of bizarre stuff, without a hint of common sense.  Previously when there was no other explanation, some form of deity was assigned responsibility.
We dedicate whole sections of our media, newspapers, TV, radio, internet etc. to "the economy"
The wealthy are to be respected, because their wealth demonstrates that they understand the new deity, money.
We have places of worship where the deity lives, previously referred to as churches and now called banks.
We have symbols of the deity, previously crosses, stars or statues, now called currency
I quit this religion.  Money is little pieces of metal, sheets of plastic and some record kept on a server somewhere.  That's all.
The real rich have true friends, and the skills to stay alive under wildly changing circumstances, like being able to feed themselves and their family, and provide them with shelter and warmth, without taking from others or the environment in an unsustainable manner.  The wealthy only have money.

Kill the Poor

Phil at whoar.co.nz has described the government as being like Alice in Wonderland.  I'm leaning more towards Kafka.  The genesis of the idea is the same, there is some form of cognitive dissonance within the government.  Looking at the proposed welfare reforms (and glumly accepting that they will be implemented), it's obvious that John Key never realised that the Dead Kennedys' "Kill thePoor" was satire.  Actually, I doubt John Key ever listened to DK, he seems more like a  Phil Collins-type.

I would like the principle behind the proposed reforms explained.  I can see some horrible logic, is it:

·         Women who have children must not have more children, if they are receiving a benefit (because [insert reason here – I haven't worked it out yet]).  Or

·         Women who receive the DPB should not have sex (because sex outside marriage is immoral).  Or

·         Children who are born to a woman on the DPB deserve less support than other children (to punish the mothers for their wantonness)?

The tripe that the government served up in parliament over the last two days has been appalling, and has gone almost unchallenged.  Key and Bennett have both talked about the positive side of the ledger, jobs created, and completely ignored the other side, jobs destroyed. Authors at The Standard have picked it up in several posts, but opposition parties have dropped the ball and it's gone swish over the heads of the media.

The proposal is that carers for five + year olds need to be ready for part time work, and 14 + year olds for full time work.  The cognitive dissonance here is that unemployment has steadily risen since National came to power; there are no jobs because more jobs have been destroyed than created.

At least we have had record net migration to Australia.  Imagine how bad unemployment would be if all those skilled people hadn't left the country.

The vilest part is saved for the most sinful of beneficiaries (the woman who dares to have another child while on the DPB), who are required to be ready to work when their child is one year old.  Is there any evidence to show this is a good idea?  Because to me it looks like it is purely punitive, and ideologically based.

At a fundamental level I agree with National, in fact I would go further and say the benefit system needs to be abolished.  Where we differ, drastically, is that I believe the abolition can only occur when we have a society where the payment of benefits is unnecessary because no one needs them.  National have moved us away from that goal and put us in a position where benefits, as a proxy for support from society, are needed more than ever.  Hang your head in shame, Mr Key.

My Mistake

Over at Keeping Stock, Inventory2 plays the "politics of envy" card.  And loses.