stargazer

the chinese question

2012-01-29T21:36:00.003+13:00

i haven't linked to stuff i've been putting up at the hand mirror lately, so let me rectify that. today i've posted an interview with a female comedian, and raised some issues around that. yesterday i posted about school uniforms and my complete dislike of roman sandals. it turns out that said style of sandals have some adoring fans. who knew? my daughters wishes to let the world know that she absolutely hates them (she doesn't get that from me, honest!). and finally, a post a couple of weeks ago about underlying racism in the criticism of brian tamaki.

i've been meaning to post the last couple of days about the sale of crafar farms to a chinese consortirum. there are a lot of accusations of racism in the reaction to the deals, and denials that the reaction is racist. having read quite a lot from either side, i'm unfortunately not at all clear where i stand.

my initial position is that i don't want nz land to be sold to non-residents. i don't particularly want our key infrastructure companies to be sold off either. i think strategically certain assets should stay in nz ownership. i may not have written about it before, but i would feel particularly annoyed at news stories i'd seen a few years back with shania twain on her nz farm. as part of the whole foreshore and seabed debate, it annoyed me immensely that non-residents could own beachfront properties thereby restricting access to the beaches, but there was such opposition to maori holding such title, particularly when they had historic use of that place.

on the other hand, there is a clash between this position and the hatred i have of nationalism. and so much of the opposition to non-resident ownership is couched in the language of patriotism, about who belongs and who is foreign to this country. is it possible to hate foreign ownership of our strategic assets without hating foreigners? many people say it is, and i'm sure it's possible. but the way the debates happen, the way the arguments are framed don't always make this distinction clear. hence the bad aftertaste, as it were, from reading the various views.

if we are to be citizens of earth before we are citizens of a particular country, then surely it doesn't matter who owns the land? why should we be prosperous at the expense of other countries, and because we participate in international structures and rules that perpetuate inequality?

the answer to these questions is that the people who would be buying our strategic assets will be those who already have a lot of money, and their ownership is highly unlikely to reduce inequality on a global scale or to have any impact on poverty in their own country. the same argument could be made about nz owners though: having the crafar's own that land didn't help inequality in nz or reduce poverty. it likely harmed the country because of their poor standards of animal welfare and their disdain of any kind of responsibility to the environment. so if nz ownership is not benefitting nz'ers, surely it should make no difference if the property is owned foreigners.

there is a difference though, if that land is run ethically and profitably (can we count on the new owners to do that?) but the profits leave nz. it means that wealth is leaving this country that would have been put back into the economy and should improve the economic well-being of the country. again, to me the key question is: where will those profits be going? if for example, they were going to poor chinese people and uplifting the living standards of a large number of people, then i don't see why we should object. especially if those profits aren't achieving the same results in nz. however, in this case, we have no knowledge or guarantee that the profits will be used in such a way, so it's a moot argument.

there's certainly no merit to the argument that the bid from the group including michael fay will be more beneficial to nz. there is nothing in that man's history that could support such a notion, and it's not like he's living here and paying taxes here in order to return some of the wealth he siphoned off from this country.

there does remain the issue that there has been a much larger public outcry regarding the chinese bid, simply because they are chinese. i think it's silly to deny that race is a factor for plenty of people who object to the sale. as i've said above, it's clearly seen in the way the arguments against the sale are presented by many of those who object.

the same level of publicity has not been given to other sales of land to non-residents. but there's an argument to be made that this is as much an issue about what the media choose to report and focus on, than something the public being the initial source of the angst. one of the joys (/sarcsasm) of having mr peters back in parliament is that he will quite happily use this kind of scenario for publicity, and the media generally tend to report it.

on the other hand, the greens have been very vocal in their opposition to china on many fronts - the food labelling issue, the tibet issue and certainly on this one as well. they tend to be pretty vocal on a lot of foreign policy issues though, and have been equally critical of western countries as well. they don't, however, have one of their leaders deliberating sitting on the steps of parliament with a flag and creating a huge media ruckus when it comes to any other country.

in a way, that rankles. though i'm really wary of the argument "if you're going to complain about [x], why aren't you also complaining about [y]" or "[x] is nowhere near as important as [y], why don't you focus on [y]". feminists get that all the time: why are you complaining about being harassed in an elevator when women are getting raped and beaten elsewhere in the world. just because the latter is occurring doesn't mean we should pay no attention whatsoever on the former. and people have limited time and energy to focus on issues. they have a right to choose what's important to them.

having acknowledged that, it still rankles that china is singled out for this kind of protest by the greens. i'm having a hard time unpicking the reasons for it in my own head. i think it's because of context: we're living in a country where people are racist towards chinese and intolerant of asian immigrants. these kinds of actions strengthen the position of the racists. on the other hand, it's not fair to exempt another country from criticism just because there is racism in this country. i'm pretty unhappy with china because of their treatment of the uighurs, but acknowledge that there are a lot of other issues as well.

so, after all of these words, i'm still no clearer on my own position regarding the sale. i'm clear that i'm against contempt of chinese people as individuals, though not against criticism of their government. i'm against arguments that have a strong whiff of western superiority and often a hint of white supremacy. i'd still prefer to see nz ownership of key nz assets, but i want to see all nz'ers benefit from that ownership, not just a select few.

a bit of aussie humour

2012-01-27T23:25:00.002+13:00

sort of following on from my last post which had a little bit about australia, there is this clip (via facebook) which i thought was pretty funny:

this is one of the guys from fear of a brown planet. i linked to an interview with them last year.

in case you don't know who andrew bolt is, here's a news story with a handy audio clip of the nasty stuff he said.

oh, and just in case you think i'm picking on australians in a mean way, just remember that aamer rahman is also an australian & i think he's great.

26 january

2012-01-24T23:29:00.003+13:00

26th january is an important day for two large countries. for indians, it's republic day and for australians it's australia day. because of a status update on facebook, i had reason to think about these two very different events at the same time. and it struck me that the reason why they are different is that the former is a celebration about liberation from colonisation while the latter is a celebration of colonisation.

i've written before about indian republic day, and how i'm not a huge fan of the way it's currently celebrated. that mostly centres around the nationalism and patriotism that can be pretty destructive in three ways. first, it means people don't see themselves as part of a global village but rather as a nation competing with other nations. hence they are less likely to be in favour of measures that may not be directly of benefit to their particular country (and in fact may be detrimental) but would be beneficial either to the planet as a whole or to the more marginalised parts of the planet that really need some assistance.

second, it causes people to see those who are born in or looking like the majority in the nation state as outsiders. which means, of course, an othering of migrants even if those migrants happen to no longer be migrants but are in fact second and third generation offspring of migrants. it causes a huge division between those who are seen to belong, and those who don't belong.

third, it stifles criticism. any criticism of the culture, government, traditions, business practices or whatever can be written off as unpatriotic, and the person making the criticism can then be socially punished (kind of like what happened to the dixie chicks when they opposed the invasion of iraq).

it is the nature of a national day that it will be full of national pride and so these negative consequences are pretty much impossible to avoid. on the other hand, for a country that was colonised and has since achieved independence, this is a thing to celebrate. freedom, autonomy, self-determination. these are all worthwhile things to celebrate.

the cost of obtaining these things - the lives lost, the bitterness and division caused in the creation of a nation state should also be remembered. but they don't tend to be remembered quite so well. yes, we remember the freedom fighters who stood up to the colonisers. we remember those who fought the enemy. but we tend to forget the infighting, and those who died and suffered because we were, for whatever reason, divided.

to me, australia day has the worst aspects of a national day without any of the redeeming features. the nationalism is solely a celebration of the colonisers who took over the country, without any type of soul searching regarding the costs to the indigenous people. of course that's an opinion from an outsider looking in. i know there are protests held by the aboriginal people in canberra, and maybe there are official celebrations that take into account the history of the indigenous people and acknowledge the dispossession and damage they have suffered. if there are, i guess we don't tend to hear about them so much. i found this page on an australia day site, and the apologism is breathtaking (oh, but times were different then and everyone was doing it and ... just ugh).

to have those old ships coming into port, without feeling an incredible sense of sadness? i don't know how people do that. how they allow themselves to ignore or be intentionally unaware of how such an act could be hurtful. add to this the stories i've heard of young white men, draped in flags, and terrorising people of colour and it doesn't really sound like much of a celebration. and yes, i'm sure the latter behaviour is only carried out by a small number of people, but it's impossible for me to ignore. and i suspect that there are plenty of people of colour in australia who feel the same.

if we must have a national day in nz, i'm really glad that it's waitangi day. it's very, very far from perfect. but at least it's an attempt to recognise a partnership between two people. at least our indigenous population tend to be centred on that day (even though the media coverage is largely negative). at least we're not running around waving flags and feeling full of ourselves, as if there were no skeletons in our closet so to speak.

happy 26 january everyone.

how did that happen?

2012-01-23T19:58:00.002+13:00

oh no, can it be that i agree with winston peters? it appears that i do:

Rt Hon Winston Peters says it is hard to understand how Dotcom passed the “good character” requirements for New Zealand residency.

“It has been reported that Dotcom is known in Germany as a notorious computer hacker and has been convicted of insider trading yet immigration authorities let him settle here under the so-called investor-plus category.

“The prime minister should order an immediate inquiry by a qualified person to see who was involved in this immigration scandal and ensure that it doesn’t happen again.”

well i agree with the bit above anyway. then he goes back to form about the slack immigration service, saddam's henchmen, blahblahblah. not only predictably boring, but annoying because it detracts from a couple of really valid points.

i can't say i know much about the actual case at hand re megaupload. behind not very clever with the technology stuff, i don't really download anything, not even legal stuff, except maybe some bits and pieces from youtube and a couple of free songs from yusuf islam. i am so uncool that i don't own anything by way of MP3 player, e-reader, tablet or smartphone (i barely know what some of these mean).

so really, no big deal for me when these guys got busted. as to whether they are found guilty of anything, i'm quite happy to leave that to the courts. there are arguments to be made about profiteering by the music industry and the big movie companies, and i don't see why any particular person is absolutely entitled to tens of millions of dollars in profits for a particular creative effort. which is why i have a lot of time for j k rowling, who is at least trying to give back to her fans via the pottermore site (which i've never visited so don't really know what that's about either).

but really, the copyright issues aren't so important to me in this particular case (SOPA & PIPA are quite something else, but again i'm not informed enough to comment). it does bother me that someone can pay $10 million to buy residency in this country. i don't see why we should be accepting people just because we want to attract investment.

and while it's good to have cashflow into the country, it annoys me that we think people with money have more to contribute than people without money. the way we value people and their contributions is seriously flawed. to me, the women who come here to work in our resthomes or who end up working as cleaners make an extremely valuable contribution to society. the people who end up running dairies and other small businesses, those who come to work as nurses: just because they don't bring in millions doesn't mean they aren't enriching our country with their presence and their efforts.

i actually object to the notion that people with money get an easier path to immigration. there's no reason for it, and if they want to be investing significant sums here, they can clearly do that without being residents (crafar farms for example).

for that reason, i'm in agreement with mr peters that there should be an inquiry into this particular case. i'd go further and say that there needs to be an independent body outside of immigration, similar to the health & disability commissioner, the prisons inspectorate or the independent police complaints authority, to which complaints can be made. immigration nz needs to know that they will be held accountable by a body that is outside of their influence.

soft hands

2012-01-18T19:04:00.003+13:00

on monday i received a gift voucher for a place that does manicures and pedicures, as well as other beauty treatments. this is not something i spend my own money on - i don't think i've been in anything called a beauty parlour in my life. never had a facial or any of the other treatments. i can see why other women would do this though, as a means of relaxation or whatever. i just choose not to because i would much rather be spending my money on other things - books, a movie, dinner out, or, just other things.

so when i got the voucher, and having had a trying day on monday, i decided to use it pretty much immediately, as an exercise in stress-relief. i chose a manicure, and it was nice. i got talking to the young woman who was working on my hands - or more accurately, she started talking to me as i think they are expected to do. she was asian, here on a study visa and no doubt working to support herself.

i remarked that her hands must be pretty soft from using all this cream on clients. she misheard me and thought i'd said her hands must be sore. and it turns out that they do get quite sore. mostly from the pedicures, which include a 10-minute foot massage. it reminded once again how lucky i am to work in a job that doesn't actually cause physical pain.

but this woman shouldn't have to endure physical pain in her work either. there's something wrong with the work procedures or the way work is scheduled if it results in employees having really sore hands at the end of the day. here we have an instance of a vulnerable worker - one who most likely doesn't have permanent residence if she's an international student, one who no doubt desperately needs the money, and one who probably isn't fully aware of her rights according to nz law. it seemed to me that the place was full of similar young women.

i doubt that she'd dare complain for fear of losing her job. i imagine the owner of the place, who is likely to be sefl-employed, also works with aching hands. and this is what some people have to live with to earn a living in nz. it's not right in the case of the employer, any more than it is for the employees.

so i'm wondering if i really want to go back for this kind of service. on the one hand both the employer and employee depend on customers in order to earn an income. on the other hand, i don't want to know that someone is feeling pain but hiding it, while she works on my hands and provides the best service she can.

not quite rested

2012-01-16T20:31:00.002+13:00

today was my first day back at work after the summer break. you would think that i would have arrived back well-rested, after three weeks off but it didn't work out that way.

on friday afternoon, we welcomed back to hamilton a group of young muslim women who had been on a 4-day canoeing trip on the waikato river. they had rowed some 18 kms, as well as organise activities including abseiling, rock-climbing, flying fox and a marae visit. the young women had an integral part in organising the event, as well as running it. there were two women instructors who ran all the physical events and the my good friend aliya danziesen is the adult who is responsible for organising and motivating the youth group.

so they got back into hamilton and we had a lovely welcome for them, with members of the community as well as the mayor of hamilton and labour MP sue moroney, and two representatives from the american embassy who previously provided funding for the group. there were presentations and short speeches, and the all-important sharing of food. having watched these young women as they have progressed over the last 3 years, it was incredibly inspiring to see how far they have come, and to hear their commitment towards giving back to the community who have supported them.

on saturday and sunday i was in christchurch and dunedin respectively, co-presenting workshops to muslim women about nz laws that affect them (made possible by funding accessed via the american embassy). my fellow presenter was noeleen van de lisdonk from the fatimah foundation, which organisation provides a range of social support services in auckland. there were 4 parts to the workshop - we talked about the stresses related to migration, laws around violence in the home, issues around parenting and the importance of self-care.

while both of us shared on all topics, i was primarily responsible for the first and the third. the workshop was interactive, so the women shared their experiences of moving to nz. some had positive experiences, other found it more difficult. those who have come recently have had the benefits of a more diverse community in nz, and support services such as migrant resource centres. even so, it is no easy job to leave family and friends to go to a new place, to re-establish and try to connect with a new group of people. even harder when language is an issue, transport is a problem and paid employment is hard to find.

the most important part for me was the section on parenting. being a person who grew up in nz with parents who had grown up in another country, there were some tips i could share. the thing is, when you grow up in a country where you are part of the majority, where you look like everyone else, where everyone does things the way you do them, then often you don't appreciate how hard it is for kids growing up in a place where they are the odd one out. of course the parents are also the odd one out, but as adults they are often much better placed to deal with that. they are much better able to answer back from a position of strength, often being much more secure in their identity.

kids have a much more difficult time. very often these children will be made to feel bad or embarassed about who they are and how they dress, eat, talk, and any number of other things. many of them don't have extended family members who they can turn to for help. between the parents and the children, there is not only the generation gap but a cultural gap, together creating much greater levels of tension.

sometimes when i think about the pressures of migration, i wonder how people are able to uproot and leave. but of course they do it for so many reasons, primarily for safety and for a better future for their children. they don't often realise how much additional pressure they are placing on their children. so it was great to have that conversation in the south and to explore ways we can provide better support for these young people as a community. and also how we can support each other as adults. community is so incredibly important for the well-being of people, and a especially that sense of belonging, of feeling valued and connected.

we had a lot of positive feedback and i hope it results in some concrete action. but if nothing else, we were able to raise awareness of some crucial issues. so it was definitely worth feeling a bit groggy at work this morning!

what i've been reading online in the last week

2012-01-10T23:48:00.005+13:00

since i'm still on holiday this week, i've had time to read various bits and pieces around the internet, and i'm going to share the links. because i've read so much stuff and forgotten who referred me to it, i'm going to leave out the attributions - apologies for that.

- there's this piece in the new york times in which a former inmate of guantanamo bay writes about his experiences, or at least some of them. his actual experiences of how he was treated while incarcerated aren't included.

- i liked this list of human rights issues related to business and commerce. that first one is just so relevant to what's happening with ports of auckland just now, but also relevant to many low-payinbg jobs such as cleaners and bus drivers.

- speaking of the ports of auckland dispute, here is the fact sheet prepared by the unions (pdf) and a couple of really good posts at the standard.

- i found this a useful primer on new detention laws passed in america. one point of view i struggle with in the comments is that such laws are ok to apply to foreigners but an outrage when applied to american citizens. seems to be a real disconnect in that way of thinking and perhaps those people need to have a read of the first post i've linked to.

- excellent post by keith ng about astroturfing by the tobacco industry. if you have a few spare dollars, i strongly recommend you send a little of it his way. this is the kind of reporting that is crucially important and that we're not seeing enough of in mainstream media.

- i came across this post a couple of days after i'd watched the original video of things white girls say to black girls at womanist musings. the video itself i didn't find particularly wonderful though i truly understand the frustration behind it - especially because i could easily do one of my own with "aren't you hot wearing all those clothes", "did you have an arranged marriage", "i thought your husband forced you to wear that scarf" and many, many more. but the actual post i've linked made some really good points around institutional racism, power and privilege.

- i found this a rather sad story about a native american woman being cast out of her tribe for not having the correct lineage. there are issues around who has the power and the inability to challenge that power, issues of self-determination, a need for the tribe to protect it's resources by not allowing "outsiders" to be taking shares, and also very sad for me that the wealth of the tribe is coming from operation of casinos which are in themselves exploitative. no easy answers here.

- i remember writing a brief paragraph about stieg larsson's "girl with a dragon tattoo" after i'd read it, because it just didn't seem to me to be quite the feminist novel it's portrayed as being. this post really nails the issues i had with it - having previously read one dean koontz and one richard north patterson (i know the linked post mentions james patterson) novel some years before i read larsson's book, my mind had immediately connected the similarity in styles and the misgivings i'd had with those earlier authors. i've never felt the desire to read anything by them again.

- i'm not going to watch the tintin movie because of my desire to never contribute further to the financial success of peter jackson. this post gives another reason for not watching it.

- there's this post about african musicians responding to mr geldof's question of whether they know it's christmas time. i thought the question posed by mr geldof wasn't about their actual level of knowledge about christmas, but more around the fact that many of the severely impoverished didn't have the money for a special meal or presents. even so, i thought it was a bit insensitive because of the fact that many africans aren't even christian so are unlikely to celebrate it. though the song was about capturing attention in western nations, it would have been wise to try to capture the essence of the people you're singing about.

and finally, i've written a couple of posts at the hand mirror aside from the one cross-posted yesterday. there's one today about domestic violence in relation to immigration status, and another a few days ago regarding the loss of another free-to-air channel in nz.

i have given you my soul; leave me my name!

2012-01-08T14:31:00.003+13:00

i've been inspired by annanonymous' post on naming to reflect on my own choices of names as a parent. she makes the point that:

The names which top the 2011 lists are indeed fairly middle class, and the trends in their popularity suggest that 'generic' is what parents are after: they're choosing names that don't stand out too much. There's actually a lot of comfort in conformity.

while this may be true of the western world, the opposite seems to be the case in the indian subcontinent (and particularly india & pakistan). of course i don't have research to back this up, only my own personal experience. but that experience strongly suggests that having a unique name is the over-riding factor for this group of parents. they will try to find a name that no-one has heard of.

i wonder if this is because families are generally so much larger there, so the likelihood of a name being used by cousins, nephews, neices, uncles, aunties, brothers and sisters for their own children are pretty high. since they don't want to have double-ups with relatively close relations, they try to find something unusual.

since there's such a variety of names anyway, based on the many languages and historical influences, no-one actually cares if a name is easy to spell. also, many naming traditions in the region don't include a "family" name - there isn't a common name that everyone in the same family has. so there isn't that sense of conformity that you might find in a western tradition.

which is not to say that there aren't rules. giving names is a very serious matter for muslims. there are quite a body of writing and thought around giving names to children. the name should be one that has historical significance - ie one that was held by a person of good quality who led an exemplary life. hence why the most popular boys name in the world is mohammad (in many spelling variations), though very few of them are actually called by that name. it just forms a part of their full name. as a side note, i've often wondered why christians in the english-speaking world don't use "jesus" as a name much more often. it seems to be used in the latino culture a lot more.

names should also have a good meaning and not be an embarassment to the child. in fact, it's seen as the right of a child that the parents should choose a decent and sensible name. so, even if names are chosen because they are unique or unusual, parents in the indian subcontinent do make an effort to ensure that it won't be a cause of ridicule. not that i believe anyone should be ridiculed because of their name, but i guess it's a protection of the diginity of the child.

a name is the most important part of a person's identity, but one that they initially don't get to choose. and while many do choose to change it in later life, most commonly married women in the west, that initial name does seem to form a part of who you are or how you are defined. there isn't really any other way to do it - children aren't able to make a decision about it until they are at least a few years old, and at that age are likely to make a decision they'll regret later in life. so one of the most important things about you is beyond your control, at least for quite a few years. and even then, changing a given name is likely to cause some hurt to the parents who took the time to choose it for you.

names are such a contentious issue - any post about changing names on marriage will often be attract the most comments on feminist websites. it's something that many of us intrinsically place a lot of value on. it's something about us that we want other people to get right. i think my name is pretty simple, being only 5 letters, but i keep a list of all the ways people manage to get my name wrong when i say it to them over the phone. it includes angie, angela, eugene, as well as some not so nice ones. and i make an effort to say it very slowly and carefully, because i know that as soon as people hear the first syllable, they stop listening and assume the rest. the fact that i have a very kiwi accent and they can't see i'm a woman of colour helps in their assumption that i have a traditional european name.

the pronunciation of such a simple name is also an issue. the average nz'er wants to say the first syllable with the same pronunciation as the word "an" as in "an apple", though the correct pronunciation is "un" as in "unforgettable". the second syllable comes out as "jim" even though it's quite clearly spelt "jum" and i take the trouble to say it that way. i certainly don't mind people who make a first attempt without having heard me say it getting it wrong. but it does bother me when i've said it for them, slowly and clearly, and they insist on saying it wrong. grrr.

as for my own children, i bucked the trend of unusual names to go for very traditional and common ones for my own children. in fact, i decided on the name for my first child when i was 15 years old, having read about the most famous historical figure to hold the name, and admiring her greatly.

it is apparently traditional in some cultures for the paternal grandparents to choose the name, or for the father to do it. i find this really difficult - my own position was that i was the one who had gone through all the pain and hardship of bearing and giving birth to this child, which should surely result in my having the right to choose the name. pretty one-sided i guess, but at the time, i felt really strongly about it and couldn't have borne the thought of someone else choosing a name for my babies.

at least i have clean teeth

2012-01-05T19:14:00.002+13:00

i went to the dentist today. i'm very bad at going to the dentist ie i generally don't. even though i've paid the price by having to go through a couple of root canals. i know it's silly and i should just take better care of my teeth by visiting the dentist regularly. but today reminded what an unpleasant experience it is.

it was just a regular check-up with a clean and polish. no fillings required, no injections and drills. but even so, even with the numbing gel on my gums, i found the cleaning to be painful. i wouldn't have taken more than 20 minutes (the cleaning part), but it was really unpleasant and i was thinking the whole time "i've really got to make sure this doesn't put me off coming back for my next check up".

i don't deal well with pain. maybe i'm overly sensitive, but physical pain is a real issue for me. i try to be tough, i mentally prepare myself to endure but when the time comes, i find i can't endure very much at all. don't even ask me how i went through labour pains, twice. i was a pretty hopeless case with that as well, a real screamer and basically opting for every drug available. i had an epidural the first time around, and made do with a tens machine & a pethidine injection the second time around. but i certainly didn't face the whole experience with stoicism and dignity. it just doesn't seem to be in my repertoire.

i have the same problem with cervical smears. for some reason, i find them extremely painful and the last one i had left me bleeding as well as crying out loud with the pain. this was despite the fact that the nurse who did the smears was very experienced and very well aware that smears are painful for me. i'd avoided smears for many years just for this reason, and i know that having cancer is actually much worse, but i just can't seem to get over this very strong tendency to avoid anything that involves physical pain.

possibly it's more a mental thing - the tensing up which causes me to experience more pain than i should. but i really tried physically relaxing all my muscles today, unclenching my fists, relaxing my shoulders, breathing slowly. it doesn't seem to help. and the dentist telling me that i may need to have at least one crown in the reasonably near future is really not good.

aside from the cost ($1,300? how on earth do people with no jobs or on low wages afford this stuff? i suppose they opt to have teeth pulled out as it's cheaper?), the whole procedure looks beyond my ability to endure. the last root canal i had involved going to a specialist and getting some heavy duty pain killers, and cost over $3,000. this was after the regular dentist gave me five injections and i still couldn't bear the pain.

i know how very much i sound like a pampered princess here, in the sense that many people endure far more physical pain for much longer periods of time and with much more courage. even knowing that doesn't help. i have extreme admiration for their endurance and pretty much contempt for my inability to do the same. but that's just who i am.

in the meantime, the one reason i miss jim anderton as a politician is because he was about the only one actively campaigning on making dentistry affordable. i think it's really important - i know i have the ability to pay, but those who don't should be able to access an equal level of care as someone like me.

happy new year

2011-12-31T23:26:00.003+13:00

i've had a nice break from blogging over the past week. mostly because i've been away on holiday. we spent 4 nights at a beach not too far from home, and not too far from civilisation. i love swimming in the sea, but only if there are decent waves. there's something about a big wall of water coming right at me that i find exhilarating, for some absolutely unknown reason. perhaps it's the adrenaline rush and the fun of jumping over it and not being pulled under. who knows, i stopped trying to understand myself a long time ago!

then there was the swimming pool at the motel we were at, with a spa pool built into a corner of it. so straight out from swimming in the sea, we jumped straight in the pool, then when we got tired of that, had a soak in the spa. finished off by a nice hot shower back in our room. lovely way to spend an afternoon. we also managed to fit in shopping, horse-riding, sunset walks on the beach, tv, reading and shopping.

i'm definitely not one for roughing it. i have no interest in camping, can't put up a tent, won't do without electricity and all the other comforts of civilisation. and yes, i know it's a disgustingly privileged way to be, considering the way that some people have to live. i don't justify it, i just know that if i'm going on something called a holiday, then it has to be in a way i'm going to be able to enjoy. i know that even being able to afford to have a holiday is a privilege in itself, and it's certainly not something i take for granted.

in the dying moments of 2011, i've written a post at the hand mirror about the increasing tendency to treat identity politics as somehow taking away from class politics. i think it's a pretty stupid way to view the world, but you can read about that over there - and apologies if the bad language is likely to offend. i just needed to get the anger out of my system.

and as i said over there, i'm not in any kind of reflective mood. i don't want to think about the year past or the year ahead. i just want to enjoy this quiet time which is also a privilege, and enjoy the fact that i don't have to turn up at work for the next couple of weeks.

but i'm not so churlish that i won't wish you all a happy new year. i hope that the new one is good for you, or that you at least have support during the not so good moments of it. seeing as i started the post talking about the sea, i'll end on that note. someone once said that life is like waves in the ocean. when the good times are with you, remember that like a wave they will recede and be replaced by bad times. and when the bad times are with you, remember that they will recede like a wave, and be replaced with good times. for some reason, this has been a really useful piece of advice for me. it helps me to grit my teeth during the bad times and wait for them to be over. and it helps me to not take the good times for granted.

how to make the most out of a disaster

2011-12-23T22:12:00.003+13:00

so sorry to hear about the round of earthquakes in christchurch. yet another round of power cuts, liquefaction and general misery. i can imagine just how difficult it must be for them, and wish there was some way to make it better for them, other than just sending prayers and good wishes their way.

in the meantime, our national airline is doing its best to make as much money as it can from the disaster. because the christchurch airport was closed for part of the day, a couple of flights was cancelled, including one that was to carry one of my loved ones. wellington airport was pretty chaotic, the staff hassled and unable to provide much information. it was extremely difficult to get through by phone - the line was engaged for much of the evening and once you got through, it was a 45 minute wait before you got to talk to a person.

when i did manage to get through, they were as unhelpful as could be possible. they are refusing to provide accommodation, or any form of support. they are refusing to put on any extra flights to cover the ones that are cancelled. they have spare seats to other close-by destinations, but in order to transfer to another city, they want to charge an extra $115. even though the seat will otherwise by empty, and even though they were the ones to cancel the flight.

this is yet another example of the contempt that businesses in nz are showing their customers. air nz is in a monopoly position for all but 3 cities in nz, and they are quite happy to abuse their monopoly position to treat customers like crap. talk about failing to take any kind of responsibility. they were as unhelpful as they could be, and pretty nasty to boot.

when i mentioned that we have a holiday booked on the 25th, the air nz staff member showed incredulity with "on christmas day?". to which i replied that i wasn't christian and didn't celebrate christmas, so had no problem travelling on christmas day. but why should i even have to give that explanation. what business is it of hers what day i travel or why?

the situation at wellington airport was apparently just as bad, with staff being just as unhelpful. people were apparently in tears, those who weren't were incredibly grumpy and complaining about air nz. no doubt there are many who have had their special plans to spend time with family going up in smoke.

then there are the other costs - travel to and from the airport, extra accommodation, the cost of toll calls. all of which the airline really doesn't care about, because they are busy trying to make as much money as they can out of the situation.

of course this is nothing compared to the way christmas has been ruined for many people in christchurch, and i'm not in any way suggesting that the travellers have it worse off than the residents of that city. i'm just saying that this is no excuse for air nz to provide such terrible service and to treat its customers so badly.

full of fail

2011-12-21T23:41:00.003+13:00

i'm pretty sure we've all been sickened by the news of a woman being sentenced today for some pretty horrific child abuse. i'm not going to go into details here, but you can read this for background in case you've managed to avoid hearing about it.

there are so many levels of fail going on here, it's hard to know where to start. of course the primary failure is of the parents who abused this child. it's pretty much beyond comprehension that one human being can do this to another, and on this point there's not much more to be said.

then we have the victim-blaming by the defence lawyer. while provocation has been removed as a defence, it appears to be still available for sentencing? maybe there's a valid reason for this being so, but hard to understand how it could be used in this case. we know that this was a difficult child. in some news report i heard about how she had tried to burn her house down to kill the occupants, and there were a range of other behaviour that can only be described as difficult. but none of this is an excuse for abuse.

you would expect that parents who were struggling to deal with a difficult child would have asked for help. and they did. but that help was not forthcoming. given the child had been taken away from the parents and sexually abused while under CYFs care, then returned to them, it would be understandable if they didn't trust the state. yet it appears the state was all they had, and the support they needed wasn't given to them.

which again, is not excuse for what they did to this child. yet there remains the fact that this child belongs to a community and a society. and when the parents are unable or unwilling to provide adequate care and protection for a child, the society has a responsibility to step in. that's why we have government departments, social service agencies and NGOs working in the sector. to step in and help out so these things don't happen.

all of those systems clearly failed this child. some of this will be because of lack of adequate resourcing. CYFs is well short of the staff it needs to deal with the cases that comes to its attention. other issues are raised in the ombudsman's report on this case, and you can find some of his recommendations here.

the response from paula bennett is, frankly, pathetic. yes, the responsibility of abuse lies with the parents and they should face the consequences of their actions. but she is responsible for a department that is supposed to provide social support when needed, and especially when someone is so desperately asking for help that they write to the prime minister.

her attempts to dodge responsibility for failing to provide that support when specifically asked for it were awful to watch. it's so typically ignores the sense of community, a community that should be watching out for its weakest and most vulnerable members - in this case an abused child that could have been better protected if the parents' plea for help had been properly attended to. it ignores the fact that she is being paid a pretty handsome salary to make sure that those who need support receive it in a timely fashion, and that such support is actually meeting the level of need. in this case she has clearly failed, and it's about time she owned that fact.

at the heart of this sorry tale is a child who has been abused throughout her young life in various ways by various people. i don't know where she is now, the news reports haven't said. they have reported that she is still suffering because of her experiences, and that's not surprising. i can only hope that she is finally getting the help she needs, and that the future holds something positive for her.

i'd rather not find that funny

2011-12-19T23:05:00.002+13:00

i had an interesting evening on saturday. i went jetboating with a group of people on the waikato river, in the pouring rain. it was fabulous, though the rain did really, really sting on our faces. but the river was lovely, and all the rain caused little waterfalls all along the way, and one reasonable sized one. we got to see fish in the river, and got spun around quite a bit. great fun.

we then got changed at went off to dinner, where the entertainment for the evening was a couple of comedians & an MC. one of the comedians was ben hurley, who we see on our tv screens every now and then, mostly on tv3. i'd like to say the evening was just as much fun as the boating, but no. i'd have to say that the MC was the most appalling of the three we listened to, but none of them was particularly great.

the thing is that the women have to pay the same price as men to get into this event. but it's the women who have to sit there and listen to how we're whiny nagging bitches who won't put out or are too high maintenance, or too ugly or too slutty. and it's relentless, on and on through the evening. some of the women were laughing, some were just waiting for the whole thing to be over.

worst moment for me was mr hurley talking about how he woke his partner up by slapping her face, which brought a loud cheer from the young males in the audience. yes, feel free to call me a humourless feminist. i'd wear that label with pride. because i'd so much rather be one of those than be a person who celebrates and enjoys the thought of hitting a woman to wake her up.

and the thing is that if it's turned around the other way (which it very rarely is - women comdians often tend to denigrate women), the guys aren't laughing & don't seem to be expected to laugh. similar to when it comes to humour around race. it's all very well for white comedians to be "edgy" and "unPC", but when the joke's on white people, even tame ones, they have a tendency to walk out (eg watch the clip i linked to here) or loudly complain about reverse racism. they aren't expected to "get a sense of humour" or not be so "sensitive".

frankly, i don't want to see things turned around the other way. the answer isn't to be nasty about men, to make up for the nastiness about women. the answer is to just stop the nasty stuff about women. i wish i'd had the courage to walk out, or to at least say something to at least one of these guys about how they shouldn't be trying to do comedy to an audience when they basically hate 50% of it. what's the point?

oh, but the women were laughing too? i suppose that makes it all ok then.

the first grader

2011-12-16T23:39:00.005+13:00

i went to see a wonderful film tonight called "the first grader". it's a kenyan story, directed by a british man, and funded partly by the BBC. it's based on a true story, and i certainly left knowing a lot more about the history of that country. i was thinking that really, so many of the blockbusters we tend to see focus on stories centred in the west, and there are so many strong and wonderful stories from other parts of the world that need to be shared.

the main focus of the film is on education:

Above all, THE FIRST GRADER pays tribute to Maruge, a man Litondo believes is “inspirational” to his nation. “He’s an inspiration to both young and old Kenyans, who value education. Since Maruge’s story came out, I’ve read other stories of older people going to school,” he adds. Harris concurs. “I love the fact as well that it’s an 84-year-old man wanting to learn. Your life is never over. It’s never too late to learn and to be open to learning as well. I think those are really great messages.”

maruge is able to gain his education when the kenyan government announces a policy of free education to all. it makes me think sadly of the policies of this last government, which cut funding to adult education and restricted access to student loans to people over a certain age. the notion of lifelong learning has disappeared from policy. the notion of education as a public good has disappeared. education is now an economic pursuit, a means to an end, that end being the churning out of good, productive workers who can earn lots of money.

there is little value now given to the dignity that education gives. little value given to the notion that education reduces oppression, empowers individuals and strengthens society. in the film, there are people who object to maruge's education on the basis that it's wasted on an old man, especially when resources are scarce and children are deemed to have a greater need. the whole film is a response to that complaint, as well as being so much more.

it's also a tribute to the dignity of old age, and a history of kenya. another quote from the previous link:

What I really liked about it - and it tallied with what I was feeling at the time - is that if you see an old person, you make a thousand assumptions about them. But, that person has a huge life behind them and Maruge has this whole huge life.

i'm going to admit, somewhat shamefacedly, that i have been guilty of this myself particularly in regards older people. perhaps being more dismissive than i should, sometimes not respecting or even thinking about the whole lifetime of experiences that make this person who they are today. sometimes we're impatient, intolerant or just too self-absorbed. if this films teaches us anything, it's that we should value each individual, value their dreams and aspirations, regardless of what stage of life they are at.

the other thing i love about the film is that is has a strong female character, maruge's teacher jane obinchu. it's as much her story as it is his, and she shows so much strength and courage in standing up for masuge's right to an education. it's a powerful performance from naomie harris, probably best known as calypso in "the pirates of the carribean" films.

if you get a chance to see it, i'd really recommend you watch this film.

not so easily bought off

2011-12-15T23:21:00.002+13:00

just put up a post at the hand mirror regarding a feel-good campbell live story that was aired tonight, that has left me feeling not so good.

there are several topics i wanted to write about today, but don't have much energy. there's one i'll cover briefly: i'm not particularly impressed with fonterra's move to have free milk in schools. yes, it's nice for kids, but there is no doubt that the co-operative is doing this in an attempt to counter negative publicity over the last year.

but free milk in schools is not going to make up for the fact that they aren't doing enough to combat dirty dairying, regardless of their public statements. it won't make up for them hosting waikato regional councillors (formerly known as environment waikato, but the farming lobby holding the current council seats couldn't bear to have "environment" as part of the name so charged us ratepayers to change it) at the rugby world cup. and it won't make up for the excessive price of milk and other dairy products at the supermarket.

i resent the implication that we can be so easily manipulated to forget all of the above by this move.

there's a good discussion on the topic here at the standard (well, some of it is good), and i particularly like these points:

- But it is a bit of a cynical marketting move, aimed at getting young children into drinking milk for life, and improving Fonterra’s image

- How long before it’s used as a bargaining chip by Fonterra seeking concessions from government? Y’know….”If you don’t give us ‘x’ then the milk disappears…and you know how ‘everyone’ loves us ‘good guys’ and the milk we are ‘giving away’! So feel free to be the ‘bad guys’ losing votes for not bowing to our ‘reasonable’ demands.”

i'm also agreeing that the fruit in schools was a better policy than this one, especially when all kids don't like milk. i hated it from a very young age and would have really struggled if i was forced to drink it every day.

in the women's studies journal

2011-12-13T22:36:00.004+13:00

i was meaning to write a proper post tonight, but my energies got taken up with other things. at least i feel like i'm getting on top of the backlog of tasks i've had on my plate for a couple of months. i might even manage to relax a little over the summer break!

anyway, i wrote this post at the hand mirror about turkey's new policy for women's spaces in mosques.

and here's a link to a piece i wrote for the women's study journal (it's a pdf thing which may take a bit to load up). it's based on a speech i gave at their conference last year, and details some of my experiences in politics. obviously there's a whole lot i can't (or won't) say publicly, because i'm not willing to breach confidentiality. and also because, although i don't have the same level of experience with other parties, i suspect that have similar issues or even worse ones. i'm wary of the way my points could be used as a tool for bashing a particular party rather than focusing on the issues, which i'd be willing to bet are pretty universal.

it's a piece i found really difficult to write. it was easy to deliver as a speech, but getting things down on paper was somehow not so easy and the words didn't flow. then there was the whole editorial process, which was done gently but still involves time and energy.

but it's done and out there now. make of it what you will.

[ETA: if you want to read other pieces in the journal, here's the link.]

more on bigotry

2011-12-11T20:09:00.002+13:00

i put up this post at the hand mirror a couple of days ago about a particularly offensive bigotted attitude. i expected a little bit of flack, but it seems the crowd from nzconservative decided to turn up and attack. it then got picked up by that rather sad internet troll known as redbaiter - banned from almost all left-wing blogs and for good reason. on his blog, the bloggers at the hand mirror have had some pretty misogynist insults thrown at them - which says more about their mentality than anything else. it sounds like nothing so much as certain men not being able to cope with strong women who are prepared to control our internet spaces.

and some of the commenters missed the point of the post, which is about bigotted attitudes that are often expressed by people without any thought of how nonsensical the proposition is. this proposition formed part of one of the questions asked of me when i did a session via skype with a high school class in christchurch. it's that whole notion of people expressing that i don't belong here, which is without any basis. people who can't accept that i have equal rights and equal value to them.

in sort of related news, american candidate (not sure of the correct terms here) for the republican ticket has surprised everyone by refusing to demonise all muslims. i can't say that i've been following that process very closely other than the various embarassments and scandals, most notable of which have involved rick perry and herman cain (michele bachmann has hardly covered herself in glory either).

nothing about mr romney had me enthused - but then i would say that as a lefty. he certainly hasn't stood out in any way, hasn't shown any spectacular characteristics, hasn't clearly been a front-runner. though, given that it's now looking like a contest between mr romney and mr gingrich, i'm picking that mr romney is most likely to win the nomination.

in which case, it was nice to hear this:

A man rose from the audience, claimed he had many Muslim friends, but said, “I have never heard one Muslim condemn Islamic jihad or terrorism. I see Islamic jihad as one of the greatest threats to America and the western world. Are you going to continue to give Islam and Islamic jihad in this country a pass like everybody before you continues to do? The only people that call Islam a religion of peace are the Muslims, and they are the most violent religion in the world.”

Romney said radical, violent Islamists pose a threat to Americans and others around the world. However, he said, “they take a very different view of Islam than the Muslims I know.” He noted that he was raised in the Detroit area, which has a large Muslim population.

“They are peace-loving and America-loving individuals. I believe that very sincerely. I believe people of the Islamic faith do not have to subscribe to the idea of radical, violent jihadism.”

ok, it's not a very positive statement, i wouldn't go anywhere close to saying it was an ideal reply. but compared to what the tea party crowd are saying, and compared to what mr romney was saying just 3-4 years ago, it's a huge shift. it's the kind of answer that our very own bill english didn't have the guts to give, in a similar context.

are photographs private?

2011-12-06T23:15:00.004+13:00

in another lesson of "be-careful-where-you-get-photographed-you-don't-know-where-it-might-end-up", i found that this photo of me at community radio hamilton's end of year function ended up on the back page of the waikato times:

it's not that i mind where it ended up, but it just got me thinking about privacy and how much we're now used to not having much of it. i tend to be reasonably private about my life. i don't put many details on the internet, certainly not on social networking sites. but a camera is something that you really can't control. people can take photos of you at any time without your consent and publish them anywhere.

i find facebook really difficult in that regard. i've never put a single photo of myself on facebook but there are 40 photos tagged to my page. a good number of those don't even have me in them - i'd say only a quarter of them do. and i know i could remove the tags, but i don't want to do that because at least then i know who has put the photo up & what's been said about it.

i don't think a single one of the people putting up my photograph have asked for my consent. when the photo above was taken, i had no idea that the photographer was from the paper. or if he wasn't, that the photographs would be forwarded to the local paper. again, i don't mind any of these photos being circulated and don't want them taken down, but it bothers me that as a society, we have so little etiquette around the use photographs. we seem to assume that if a person consents to a photograph, that gives implied consent that this photograph is publicly available. even photographs taken without the consent of the subject are assumed to be publicly available.

it's probably a result of the celebrity culture and mags that will publish photos taken at any time by anyone of a "saleable" celebrity. and because their privacy means nothing, and because so many of us consume that invasion of privacy, we probably then accept that we can't be picky about our own. except that i don't buy those magazines and i've really minimised my reading of them, even in the extreme boredom of waiting to see my GP. i don't ever click on the entertainment bits of media websites, and i avoid watching shows like "entertainment tonight". in other words, i do try to consciously avoid that celebrity culture as much as i can. but that doesn't mean that i can escape its effects.

of course this is all low-level intrusion that hasn't caused me any personal harm. i can't even imagine what it must be like for people to have their hospital records passed to the public by staff trying to earn money; or to have phone conversations recorded and repeated; to having their rubbish bins searched. listening to the tales of the media inquiries in britain has been quite sad. i wonder though if there will be any significant change as a result of them.

until we stop consuming such stuff and filling the coffers of those who produce it, i very much doubt it.

minorities are actually the majority

2011-12-05T21:00:00.003+13:00

i put up a post at the hand mirror over the weekend about how sick i am of the phrase "pandering to minorities". still feeling very much annoyed about that.

tonight i went to the much-publicised meeting in hamilton, where messrs cunliffe & shearer spoke. the two candidates for deputy leader also spoke - nanaia mahuta and grant robertson. it was a meeting for financial members of the labour party only, so i'm not about to disclose what went down. let me just say that labour is lucky to have such talented people to choose from.

i can say that i'm a lot clearer now about who i support and i think party members will certainly have that same level of certainty as this roadshow goes around the country. grant roberston has now put his name forward for the deputy and that makes things difficult. because i like him just as much as nanaia and he's equally capable and principled. i'm just glad i'm not the one having to vote, though i'm very clear who i'd choose. i just hope when all the dust settles that they will both have senior roles in the party.

the process is a really healthy one. it's a competition of ideas, which is clearly important. but it's also forcing the candidates to up their game, to show some mettle and to clearly articulate what they stand for. having to answer questions on the spot is good as well. it gives the candidates an idea of the issues that are most important to the people in the room, and i think there were a good range of questions asked. a pity there wasn't more time. i think these meetings need a good two hours really.

the best thing though was to see so many people engaged and interested in the process. the crowd looked like they really appreciated the opportunity of being there, getting a chance to hear from the candidates and to question them. in terms of process, this has been a really good one. it just needs to be a good one in terms of outcome as well. here's hoping.

going back to the post i linked to above, there's one point i didn't make and it's this. by the time you add up the various "minority" groups in society that have their own specific issues, needs and policy requirements, you'll end up with a majority. and the so-called "mainstream" is actually a minority. think about it. the women's vote, the maori sector, the pasifica, sector, nz'ers with disabilities and so on: if you added them all up, they'd be more than 50% of the population.

of course there would be a lot of overlap, but even so i think it would be over 50%. and even those who see themselves as completely "mainstream" will have some particular issues that don't apply to a whole lot of other people ie a minority issue.

so, if the minority is actually the majority, then doesn't it make total sense to "pander" to these minorities? or to be more specific, to tailor policies that address the needs of specific groups, because all these groups end up making the whole. of course it does. it's more effective, and the overall result for everyone will be a better one because each group will be better able to contribute and will feel more a part of the whole when barriers are removed.

coalitions of the left

2011-12-02T11:30:00.001+13:00

i've put up a post at the hand mirror, giving my thoughts on labour's leadership and in particular, supporting nanaia mahuta as deputy leader.

there's one other point i wanted to make while i'm talking politics. much has been said by many about the demise of the ACT, united and maori parties at the next election. it's mostly in the context of the national party losing coalition partners, and it's a valid point. banks might hang on in epsom but i don't think it will be with an ACT party that looks the same as it is now. united will be gone as soon as mr dunne goes, and i think it will be extremely difficult for him to win in 2014. the maori party is highly unlikely to survive the retirements of its co-leaders.

but the one thing no-one has been talking about is the demise of nz first. probably because everyone is still adjusting to the fact that they've come back in to parliament, and with 8 MPs (at this stage). but mr peters also can't last forever, and i'd be surprised if he has more than one election left in him. again, i can't see his party surviving after he leaves. most of his MPs that had profile are not in parliament this time around (i'm thinking ron marks and peter brown - and i am so extremely glad to see the back of both of them). none of the new crop looks able to build up the profile of mr peters (and probably won't be allowed to do so while he's still around) and so keep the party alive.

so where will his voters go? i'd say a good 2% of them will go back to the labour party, as there seem to be a significant number who voted strategically to get him over the line. but his core vote? they won't go back to national because they don't support national's core agenda. but they're also not likely to support another left-wing party because, how can i put this politely, they don't support diversity and inclusiveness.

and if the left can't pick up that vote, how can it win? it will be difficult. they'd have to pick up swing voters in other demographics, but still, it seems to me that labour + greens getting more than 50% of the party vote will be a very difficult task. there is the mana party, which will certainly have life as long as mr harawira is prepared to put himself forward for te tai tokerau. the question is whether it will have traction and whether it can get enough of the party vote to bring more than 1 MP into the house.

if it does, where will that vote come from? likely to come from green party voters, possibly with some of the maori party vote as the latter dies out. however, the maori party never did get much of the party vote anyway, and has been consistently responsible for the parliamentary overhang since it came into existence.

so it seems that the left also need to think about where its coalition partners are going to come from in the longer term as well. the situation for the left is not as dire as for the right - although i suspect national is thinking seriously about supporting the conservative party so that it can have at least one stable partner that can pull in a significant chunk of the vote. if it does so, and if the conservative party can avoid the extremist christian tagging (which mr craig seems keen to do) and maybe look towards centrist policy, they may pick up some of those nz first votes.

in the meantime, the left has to be looking towards winning the arguments on policy. it should have a reasonably good chance of doing that, particularly in terms of the financial crisis and economic recession that looks set to hit the world again. the only danger is that as income inequality and poverty rises, parties preaching hatred of a minority group who is supposedly responsible for all evils in the world also tend to do well. currently in nz, that group is beneficiaries - particularly solo-mums. it's so difficult to counter this sort of nasty targetting, but there is a point at which people start to feel bad about it (eg the reaction after a few years to dr brash's orewa speech).

if the left can offer a better narrative, with positive policy solutions and integrity, i think they can win back a significant chunk of the middle vote. people want hope, they want to inspired by good things. we saw it with the obama campaign. but the thing is to be able not just to promise but also to deliver.

just tell the truth - it's not that hard

2011-11-29T22:33:00.003+13:00

i've been getting annoyed at nz businesses lately, and their pretty shoddy marketing practices. this kind of thing is what i'm talking about:

In a 14-page judgment handed down by the Advertising Standards Authority, Progressive Enterprises, which runs Countdown supermarkets, was found to have misled or deceived its customers about in-store promotions in two stores.

A Countdown store in Hornby, Christchurch, ran an advertising display featuring two supermarket trolleys, one filled with items from the store, the other from a nearby Pak'n Save, in an effort to show its prices were lower. A similar promotion was run at a Countdown in Rotorua...

The authority ruled that despite the fact Countdown had highlighted the items on special, it had chosen nine out of 33 special items from its store, compared with just three from Pak'n Save. The highlighted items included a bag of dog biscuits reduced by $7.10.

"The method of selecting items, the brand of the items and products on sale all comprised elements which had the likelihood to mislead or deceive the customer," the authority said.

Every year since 2008 there have been complaints upheld against either Progressive Enterprises or Foodstuffs under the authority's code for dealing with complaints about comparative advertising.

i've been dealing with another case of misleading advertising, which has resulted in me putting in a complaint to the commerce commission for the first time in my life. i'm not going to name the store or the product just now, but basically the store advertised an item on special for just under 50% of the recommended retail price. the RRP was stated as $199 in the ad, and the price on special was $99. thinking i was getting a real bargain, i bought it. the ad had stated that they were selling some items at below cost price, so i don't think i was being naive in believing the mark-down.

when i got home and looked at the packaging, the sticker price on the package showed that the normal price for this item $129, not $199. thinking that they may have given me the wrong model, i checked through the specifications, and they exactly matched the specifications on the ad. i went online, and sure enough, the product was listed on the store's website at $129 - and that was clearly the normal selling price.

so they hadn't marked it down from $199 at all. the ad was just a blatant and shameless lie. i know i shouldn't be shocked at this kind of thing, but i am. i thought we had laws and standards in this country, and that retailers would make some attempt to comply with them. the fact that they were so careless about the actual price just seems to show a real contempt for the consumer. not that any attempt to have been more clever at their cheating would make them any better. i guess maybe i'm just as appalled at the stupidity as i am at the cheating.

another example is a box of muesli bars i bought this week at the supermarket. they were on sale for $2.49, which is pretty cheap for a pack of 6 muesli bars. so i bought a few. when i opened the packet next morning, it turns out there aren't 6 bars in the box, only 5. every single box of muesli bars i've bought before now, regardless of the brand, has had 6 bars. there was no overt advertising anywhere to highlight the fact that the cheaper price was because there is less product.

i know it's a small thing, but just the number of problems like this is really highlighting for me the total lack of ethics in the business community. again, i know, this is not a major new finding on my part. i know the history of business is full of similar examples. i bring these things up to show how much business needs to be regulated.

and yes, there are bigger and better examples. the whole leaky buildings things. the financial crisis both here and overseas. all show that unless someone is keeping a close eye on them, businesses are likely to cheat us without even thinking twice about it. not every business and not all the time. but enough times to make it clear that deregulation is a bad thing.

and yet consistently, almost every business or organisation that is representative of the business community complainly as loudly and as often as they can about bureaucracy, red-tape, over-regulation. ugh. i'm particularly sick of it right now, given they can't keep to some pretty minimum standards of honesty.

an upsurge of nastiness?

2011-11-28T23:06:00.003+13:00

i was pretty busy with election-related stuff on friday & saturday, and trying to recover from it all on sunday. pity that the effort didn't translate into much of a result - at least not as far as the make-up of parliament goes. the MMP vote is looking positive at this stage, but only the advance votes have been counted so far. hopefully the full count will give a much more positive result.

i've put some posts up at the hand mirror in the last week - one on the asian vote, another on racist comments at a national party public meeting and one tonight on more tales from sign-waving.

just to carry on from this evening's post, i don't know if it's just me, but i'm feeling a real upsurge in nastiness of late. it's manifested in a variety of ways, but i think it's influenced by political and public discourse. in particular, the negativity around beneficiaries and single mothers has definitely gotten worse, and that's in direct relation to the welfare policies of the right. the commentary surrounding these policies still paints all beneficiaries as lazy and unwilling to do anything to change their situation.

the negativity is also informed by the likes of paul henry and other media commentators who revel in their apparent freedom from political correctness. which boils down to nothing more that their ability to be nasty about other people without consequence - which they guard as jealously as they can.

all of that stuff affects the way people behave towards each other. once it becomes ok to be judgemental and derogatory to one group of people (say beneficiaries), the shackles come off and it becomes acceptable to target any group for any set of circumstances. and the thing that worries me most about the election result we're left with is that the level of nastiness is going to rise even further in the next three years, in order to push through even more policies that punish the poor for being poor.

tales of sign waver

2011-11-24T19:00:00.003+13:00

i've spent a bit of time waving signs this week. for some very strange reason, this is an activity i enjoy. i love smiling and waving at people as they drive by (oh no, please tell me i'm not morphing into our current PM). the thing is that so many people will smile back, quite a few of them will wave & we've been getting quite a few toots.

i've been dividing my sign-waving between the labour party and the campaign for MMP. both have generally been going really well & i'll be out again tomorrow for the final push. however, i've had a couple of disturbing experiences that i wanted to share.

yesterday morning i was out with the labour team at the intersection of mill st and ulster st, best known for the big pak'n'save behind us. i was standing a couple of metres from another white male labour party member busy waving his sign, and there were people on every corner of the intersection. i'd made sure that i didn't block anyone's access, as plenty of people walk to work along the footpath i was on.

across the road comes a cyclist on the footpath (isn't that illegal). he rides past a white male waving signs across the road, rides past the white guy standing nearest to me, but decides to ride straight at me. he didn't hit me, only my sign & shocked the other people that were walking past at the time. it didn't upset me to any degree, but just showed that i'm more at risk than others when carrying out a pretty standard activity. it's a knowledge i take with me whatever i do. this is why i'm so keen that police record data about the ethnicity of victims of crime - which they consistently refuse to do. just like people of colour tend to feature highly as perpetrators of crime, i suspect they also feature pretty highly as victims of crime. but of course we don't know, and the police aren't intersted in helping us find out. i've raised this issue at various forums, but it has been raised by people who are much more important and influential than me.

it's not that other people don't get negative reactions when out sign-waving. of course they do. there are people that will give us a thumbs-down or the finger, yell out "go national" or i had a woman yell "get lost, i hate MMP". the thing is that i also get the additional layer of people who'll tell me to go back home or some such. a dude in a red car on monday evening gave me that with the swear words included, and when i gave him my usual response of blowing him a kiss and yelling "love you too!", he started screaming at me. luckily he'd gone too far past me so i couldn't hear the actual words and because of the traffic, he couldn't stop and get out so i was safe enough.

this sort of thing isn't going to stop me, of course. and i'm not sure why my response to these kinds of idiots is different when sign-waving compared to the rage-induced response i give when in the supermarket or somewhere else. i guess it's because i know the frustration people are feeling when they see us advertising something they passionately object to, they want to put us down and they feel even more frustrated when we refuse to rise to the bait and give them a cheerful response. so i'm not being particularly noble when i give a positive response, because i know that response in that context actually needles them more than a negative one.

the more disturbing incident happened yesterday afternoon when waving MMP signs at the corner of kilarney road & greenwood st. some dude was on his evening jog as he ran towards me. he stopped to have a discussion with me, which started with him telling me what i was doing was dangerous and i needed to stop.

i told him he must be joking - i've been doing this for years, and have yet to see a single accident. he then told me he works with NZTA, and that sign-waving was distracting to the traffic and i could have caused an accident. he had apparently made the greens stop at a nearby intersection the day before. i told him he was a bit over the top, people have been waving signs across the country for years and it's not dangerous. "but this is state highway 1" he says. and i'm like "so, i've been sign-waving on the cobham drive bridge many times, that's state highway 1 too. never had a single incident."

at one point, he asks me if i would like to go with him to visit "mrs johnson" when her husband had died in a car crash, and i'm like "dude, if anyone has died in a car crash because of people waving signs, then i will happily come with you". it carried on for a bit, and finally i said "well that's your opinion, i disagree". he says "no, my opinion is NZTA opinion because i work there". he had repeatedly asked who was the contact person, and i'd pointed her out. he said he'd be sending an email the next day. as he was about to cross the road, i told him that i wanted to see the evidence in his email regarding the number of crashes caused by sign-waving; data about causes of car accidents is collected so i'm sure he could provide it".

he walked across the road, said something to the guy waving signs there, then across again to the person "in charge". he then continues on his run, and our woman crosses the road as if to stop. i told her to ignore him and we carried on.

but seriously, this guy works at the NZTA and thinks he can shut down political expression just on the basis of his personal opinion? without having to consult anyone and without having to provide any evidence? he thinks because he works at NZTA, he carries the authority of the whole organisation, without having to consult with anyone else at NZTA even?

i don't know the exact law here. but i'm thinking about the banning of cellphones while driving. before they could ban that, they provided research and gave the numbers. they had to go through the whole legal process - select committee hearings, opportunities for public submissions, a public debate. not just some random dude working for the NZTA suddenly deciding he was going to stop people.

people are sign-waving right now across the whole country, from every political party. candidates from local body elections wave signs, even (shock, horror) on highway 1. protesting teachers were waving signs a couple of years ago, some of them on (you guessed it) state highway 1 - to be specific, outside the hillcrest burger king at the corner of cambridge & morrinsville roads. striking workers sign-wave. does this dude think he is single-handedly going to stop all of these people across the country and for all time from getting one of the only effective forms of free publicity available to them?

i've no doubt that there may have been the odd car accident due to sign-waving. but i doubt there have been any serious accidents. if there has been the odd prang, i don't think that's enough cause to ban an activity like this. i'm quite certain that i won't be stopping until said person turns up with the police who have a warrant for my arrest and who can show me the bit of the law that specifically bans the waving of signs. until then, he can just get lost. i won't be moving. and i'll be smiling and waving all the while.

insomnia

2011-11-17T23:45:00.006+13:00

i've had a bit of a blogging drought this week as it's taken a while to recover from the weekend. i did a trip to wellington and palmerston north, to present a workshop to the muslim community on various issues around legal responsibilities of nz muslims. it's a project funded with support from the american embassy, and the workshop was really well received. we will be taking it to christchurch and dunedin soon, as well as delivering again in auckland.

i really don't know how people manage with jobs that require extensive travel. i find it pretty exhausting. left home around 8am saturday morning, and got back close to 11pm on sunday night, and found it took me a couple of days to recover. my insomnia probably doesn't help, because i woke up around 3am sunday morning and found i couldn't get to sleep. so i ended up watching "the joneses".

now i'm not a fan of demi moore and even less so of david duchovny, but i ended up liking this film - except for the crappy ending. it's one of those films that works best if you don't know what it's about, so i'm not going to say too much about it, other than you should watch it if you get a chance. i think it has some interesting messages about consumerism.

i've been thinking to write something about #teapottapes, but it's been written about so extensively that there's really not much left to say. i find it interesting that no-one has brought up the whole john tamihere/ian wishart thing, or that incident where a journalist deliberately left a microphone recording at the 2008 annual congress of the labour, at a session where the media had been asked to leave. the former wouldn't be a breach of the law i guess, because one party was aware of the taping (being mr wishart) but i wonder about the second. it was a room full of people who had no idea they were being taped, and who trusted the fact that this was a session that wouldn't be reported on.

no questions about privacy or ethics raised in those instances. in any case, it's interesting to watch developments on this. i think the person who has really played it pretty well is bryce johns. he created the initial interest, refused to publish thereby creating even more interest and the inevitable questioning of key. by the time sunday comes around and even if he doesn't publish the transcript, there is certainly going to be huge interest in the HoS and a pretty likely spike in sales. he has certainly served his shareholders well; let's hope the readers get something out of it as well.

2011-11-11T21:00:00.000+13:00

please watch this. it's about australian comedy duo "fear of a brown planet". it's about half an hour long, but i thought it was well worth it. i really wish they'd visit nz & do some shows.

hat tipped to blue milk.

sorry isn't quite enough

2011-11-10T23:00:00.004+13:00

following on from my previous post, michael redman continues to play the victim and complains of being scapegoated in yet another article by the waikato times - an article which exclusively quotes mr redman without any response from councillors or staff. i'm wondering if this is a tactic he's using to try to pressure councillors so that they won't go ahead with the decision to sue him.

meanwhile, the councillors are refusing to resign but not refusing to say sorry. an apology, in itself, isn't enough even though it's nice to see someone willing to acknowledge their wrongdoing and apologise for it. i don't know that i'd support a mass resignation from the councillors though - given that 9 out of 12 of them were involved in the main decisions, it would gut the council and force mr hide to appoint a commissioner. regardless of the woes the council is facing at the moment, especially with high levels of debt, i don't think things would be made better by a hide-appointed commissioner.

more than that, former ACT party president and current hamilton east candidate, mr gary mallett, is waiting in the wings and has been public with his criticism. which makes me think that he might be ready to put his name forward for mayor. this would be the same mr mallett who told the then very-employed chair of the board of the top performing public high school in hamilton that people like him should go out and get a job (purely on the basis that the chair was maori and mr mallett loves to play the race card - loves it to the extent that he would pay to put in half-page ads in the local community paper every week, that were hugely anti-maori). this is the same mr mallett who was resoundingly defeated in the WEL energy trust elections a few years back. just the thought of him having any kind of political position in this city is vomit-inducing.

so i'm not sure what kind of penalty is sufficient for the offending councillors, including those who are no longer sitting. perhaps some kind of charges of negligence - because the audit office report is clear that there was a lack of due diligence, that there were councillors who weren't asking the questions they should have asked and who were accepting "commercial sensitivity" as an excuse to not do their job thoroughly.

and while we're on the subject of taking responsibility for one's actions, the "parties" charged in relation to the pike river tragedy are also not so keen to own up to their doings. not only are they keen on name suppression, but i suspect that they aren't going to put their hands up and say "guilty" to save the taxpayers the significant costs of a trial - if they are guilty, of course. but hearing the news from the commission of inquiry, there seems to have been a significant amount of negligence as a result of cost-cutting. and really, those responsible should just step forward, admit to what they've done and take the consequences of their actions. whatever those consequences are, they won't be as bad as losing one's life underground in a mining accident.

i'm not holding my breath though. given that the original company is in receivership, it's quite clear that certain "parties" were quickly strategising so that there would be a minimum amount available to be paid. rather like union carbide, and a tried and true strategy it is.

personal responsiblity? not seeing much here

2011-11-08T22:09:00.003+13:00

i'm having a difficult week for vrious reasons i'd rather not discuss. so i'm engaging in a cocoon strategy, which seems to work best for me. i'll deal with the world when i'm ready & not before.

in the meantime, i don't know if people have been following the fiasco that is the hamilton city council and the v8s. in case you haven't heard, the new mayor julie hardaker asked for the audit office to investigate the whole process around the v8s, and the audit office has now reported. long-time readers of this blog will remember that ms hardaker, a complete newcomer to politics, trounced sitting mayor bob simcock in an unexpected victory (or at least it was unexpected for mr simcock & his team). one of the key reasons for the loss, in my opinion, was the dissatisfaction of hamiltonians around the v8s and the costs having to be borne by the ratepayers.

well, the audit office report can be found here (big pdf thingy) and it isn't pretty - skip to page 9 for the executive summary. they pretty much found a lack of transparency, lack of a proper business case, lack of due diligence regarding the financial stability of the promoter (there was apparently evidence of financial difficulties faced by the promoter before the contract was signed, but the council didn't check), lack of adequate project management disciplines being applied, inapproriate delegation of approval of the contract to a council subcommittee, lack of a perception of objectivity on the part of mr redman (former mayor and champion of the v8s), lack of adequate financial management and financial reporting of the project. worst of all, estimated costs of the event to the council of $7 million ended up being more like $37 million.

is it any wonder that ratepayers are spewing?

the question, as always, is who is going to take responsibility. the main actor in this whole thing is former mayor michael redman. it was he who championed the whole notion of bringing the race to hamilton, who promoted it tirelessly through local media (most probably using the media contacts he had gained during his years owning an advertising agency), who was definitely the most informed in terms of the contracts and the organisations involved. the first person who needs to be held responsible is this man.

mr redman has always been extremely clever at media strategy. he immediately stepped down from his role at ATEED, then came out swinging. he blames the audit office for shoddy work and biased reporting; he blames the councillors who approved the contracts and expenditure without full information. he thankfully refuses to blame council staff - those staff were under his direction when moved from being mayor to replacing tony maryatt as CEO of the city, and are most likely to have any evidence (if it exists) of improper actions.

what we fail to see from mr redman is any admission of responsibility, no doubt at the request of his lawyers. neither have we heard anything out of mr simcock, the deputy mayor who became mayor when mr redman moved to the CEO position. other than when mr simcock also took pot shots at the audit office for producing a "shameful" report.

both mr redman and mr simcock are busy playing victim, effectively diverting all blame to city councillors who were, in the end, guided by these two. the waikato times played along nicely, publishing photographs of the 9 currently sitting councillors who were also representatives at the time the key decisions were made. somehow the times forgot to include pictures of those who are no longer councillors but presumable equally culpable, including glenda saunders who lost her place.

the letters to the editor, quite predictably given the way this issue has been reported, have been slamming the city councillors and calling for resignations all round. but only a very few letters have even mentioned mr redman or mr simcock, let alone criticised them. the diversion has been a success, though the current councillors are refusing to resign.

the minister for local government has now placed the council on notice, which means that he can put in commissioners at any time.

but finally, today, we get some coverage of the fact that there may be a legal case against mr redman. it appears that he may have authorised expenditure beyond his authority, to the tune of about $4 million. of course the case would have to be taken and funded by the hamilton city council, in which case i'd say it's unlikely to proceed.

there should be criminal proceedings going ahead on this matter. from what i've read so far, one would think that various aspects of local government laws that have been breached. whether or not mr redman and mr simcock are guilty of anything is for the courts to decide, but these appear to me to be matters that need to be tested in court.

i'd also like to see a lot more investigation of the switch that was done - the move of mr redman to CEO and mr simcock to mayor. as far as appearances go, in light of the avove, this appears even more dodgy than it did at the time. was the switch in order to continue the lack of transparency and the lack of adequate reporting? who knows, but the questions need to be asked and investigated in depth.

it's no secret that i have very little (if any) respect for mr redman. that was mostly because of my own experiences of dealing with him, of which the less said the better. but also because i was never a supporter of the v8s and was always unhappy at the way the race was pushed through. you could say i was and am biased, but if so, the audit office report only confirms that bias.

this needs to go further. we need some real accountability and personal responsibility happening here - things that both mr redman and mr simcock have been passionate proponents of. i'm sure that there are others who also need to take their share of the blame, and that includes some staff members. but the buck stops with the leaders, so time for them to show some quality leadership now.

broadcasting policy

2011-11-03T22:53:00.002+13:00

ok, i know i did something to my blog with those pictures yesterday & it's a little bit broken. you can still get to the old posts, just takes a couple of more clicks. i'll fix it over the weekend, when i get a little time.

in lieu of a proper post today, i'm going to reproduce a press release from the association of community access broadcasters on labour's broadcasting policy:

The Association of Community Access Broadcasters Aotearoa New Zealand [ACAB] and its membership of twelve Access Radio stations, is heartened by the vision to revitalise public broadcasting indicated in Labour Party Broadcasting Spokesperson Clare Curran’s latest media statement.

Curran is promising the opportunity for Kiwis to actively participate in the shaping of a new, non-commercial and modern public broadcasting model – a process ACAB will actively contribute to.

Curran’s statement that “A strong, independent, free public broadcasting media service not driven by commercial interests is essential to informed democracy” has struck a particularly strong chord with ACAB.

Chairperson Mike Williams was adamant, “With twelve non-commercial community access stations representing diverse niche audiences from Auckland to Invercargill, many representing communities of interest for whom access to media opportunities is sorely limited, we’re right at the coalface of fighting for informed democracy – not just here in NZ, but for migrants who maintain active interest in the rise and fall of regimes from their home countries. Access Radio IS delivering precisely what she’s advocating building up”.

Labour’s pre-election promises to encourage stronger representative voices in the media, focus on fostering new media growth, and to look at supporting better programming outcomes for our diverse cultures all mesh perfectly with ACAB’s stated goals.

“Labour has presented a promising Broadcasting Policy which indicates a true commitment to protecting and building the sort of truly local, truly representative media Kiwis are missing. ACAB supports this vision providing it preserves and strengthens the unique place the community access sector has, and invites other parties to seriously consider how they can similarly impress our sector and the communities we represent with policy that is both representative and visionary in a time of fast-paced change” says Williams.

Ends.

The Association of Community Access Broadcasters Aotearoa New Zealand represents the twelve Community Access radio stations that deliver volunteer-developed content by, for and about their local communities, according to the mandate contained in Section 36c of the Broadcasting Act 1989, which requires the government [through NZ on Air] to “ensure that a range of broadcasts is available to provide for the interests of---
(i) Women; and
(ii) Youth; and
(iii) Children; and
(iv) Persons with disabilities; and
(v) Minorities in the community including ethnic minorities; and.
(ca) To encourage a range of broadcasts that reflects the diverse religious and ethical beliefs of New Zealanders;”

community radio hamilton, of which i'm a trustee, is a member of ACAB and it is especially important to us that we have a government that is committed to supporting community broadcasting, both financially and otherwise. community radio is one of the streams of media where people are actually able to exercise freedom of speech without fear of backlash from commercial advertisers. it's important we keep it that way. that's why this policy is especially important for us.