Wierd...

An email came in today, through the probligo’s letterbox, from a person calling herself “Estelle Schumann”. I have no idea of who this virtual person might be, but the email was a request that I allow her to write a piece on education to this noble establishment; “a blog post which discusses educational reform, learning theory, and its intersection with the state of standardized testing today could be of some potential value to your readers.”

The attraction for the request was apparently, this post from a long time ago..

Don’t bother going read it, unless you really want to; it centres on a post from another blog and relating to the Iraq war and the blind rantings of a simple American mind who was led to a belief that everything America wants and does is right.

I suspect, and I am not going to try and confirm the suspicion, that the writer of the email has exactly the same motivations in writing to me. Ah… yeah, right!! I suspect that anything he/she/it might leave on my site would be very educational for those coming behind.

The second grin comes from the postscript –

"We only truly learn when the future has become history; when we're leaping forward, turning mistakes into achievements." ~Anonymous

Since when has America ever learnt from their mistakes? When has any aggressor nation ever learnt from their mistakes?

One thing certain, this old guy is not falling for it.

A nexus in political stupidity...

Just when you thought that Dr Nick Smith would indicate the depths of political stupidity in the current government, nek minit you find someone else has an even worse case of foot and mouth.

Background -

Nick Smith was Minister in charge of ACC (for the furriners that is Accident Compensation Corporation). A good (woman) mate of his had been having a long-term stoush with said ACC concerning the Corporation's rejection of an application for compensation (that is about as simple as I can make it).

He wrote a letter to the Corporation; a sort of personal reference if you like. Unfortunately it was sent on Ministerial letterhead.

The raruraru really got under way when the woman concerned approached the media claiming that she had received from the ACC an email which included a file with the names and details of a good number of compensation claimants. Herald has a reasonable summary of things here.

There is a parallel which has unfolded over the past couple of days.

This second one started with the Acting Prime Minister Jerry Brownlee in a Parliamentary debate describing Finland as

which has worse unemployment than us, has less growth than us, can hardly feed the people who live there, has a terrible homicide rate, hardly educates its people, and has no respect for women."

The best rebuttal probably comes from Finland's equivalent of Laws or Limbaugh. Take a look; it is hilarious...

But the point here is the nexus.

Smith, darling little lad that he is, claimed that the context of the two letters he wrote without revealing personal conflict of interest were such that the Ministerial letterhead would have been on little to no effect.

Sorry Nick, but does sound rather like the shepherd boy who tried to claim that "the shadow over there did look rather like a wolf".

Put it this way -

If Smith had remained as a Minister, how would any Ministerial Directive have been received? Is this Smith with his personal knickers knotted again? Or is it for real? We had better check...

Brownlee's claim, post fact, that his comments "were made in good humour" could have - I believe should have - similar consequences to Smith's indiscretion. His Jonkey boss has had to make direct apologies to the Finnish Prime Minister, a galling thought indeed.

Are we to take Brownlee in the House with any seriousness at all when any he makes statement can be simply dismissed as "in good humour" (irrespective of the consequences)? Is it enough to apologise "if anyone took offence", rather than apologising for his statement that quite a number of people - and at least two European governments other than Finland - thought was offensive? It is less that 150 years since a Parliamentarian in this country was challenged to a duel by another for less. Heaven forfend that Jerry should ever step on the toes of Julia Gillard.

For sure, the Jonkey has a problem; no, make that quite a number of problems. Who is going to shove foot in mouth next? Collins? Sharples?

Justice, late...

It has taken roughly four and a half years.

It has left a thick trail of slime through many of the presumed foundations of NZ's justice system.

It has resulted in yet more legislation intended to limit the rights of NZers to their freedoms of expression, freedoms of thought, and presumption of innocence.

The sorry saga of the Urewera 17 has come to an end, with only four of those originally arrested in Operation 8 appearing in Court, and with only half of the firearm charges against them being proven to the satisfaction of the jury.

The "belonging to an organised criminal group" charge could not be agreed by the jury on a majority (10:1) basis leading to -

Crown prosecutor Ross Burns said the Crown will consider a retrial on the lead charge of belonging to an organised criminal group, which the jurors could not reach a decision on.

"Ordinarily the Crown would proceed to a retrial but it will have to consider it carefully in this case."

Yes, I can well imagine very careful consideration. The aroma of political urging still hangs heavily in the air.

Granny Herald, in an editorial on March 24 opines that -

It is worth recalling the words of the Solicitor-General when he decided the evidence did not support a charge under the Terrorism Suppression Act. He was critical of the act ("unnecessarily complex, incoherent and almost impossible to apply") not the police. They had "a sufficient and proper basis" for concern about what these people were doing.

The video shown at the trial has confirmed that much. If people are going to play games with real guns and explosives anywhere in New Zealand, they had better ensure they are authorised in law. The police may have an apology to make for some of their actions at Ruatoki, but not for their concern about paramilitary activities. On the evidence the public has now seen, they had to act.

Now I will agree with the sentiment, the police may well have had to act. But as the editorial has suggested there are many questions to be answered.

First in my mind is "Why did NZ's Police decide to undertake the raid on Ruatoki in a manner that would have done proud the Para's in Northern Ireland, or the US's best in Iraq?" This is not a country so large that an individual, let alone a group, can be out of sight for too long. This is not (yet) a country at war with itself.

Second, there was very obviously a major police resource sunk into the "investigation" prior to the conclusion of Operation 8. So, the question must be asked, "Why is the same resource not concentrated on resolving other well-known criminal threats within our society?" There are several, self-confessed, organised criminal groups running illegal activites that range from car theft to manufacture and/or import of illegal drugs. Yet the numbers appearing on those kind of charges are very small.

Third, the Herald (along with a lot of other people, I suspect) bewails the cost of the trial - over $2.8 million in legal aid for a start - as "the most expensive in NZ history. Less than $1 million was spent on the prosecution. I for one certainly do not begrudge the legal aid. The outcome of the prosecution is sufficient explanation.

So, those in addition to the questions asked in Herald's editorial...

The public still awaits the Police Complaints Authority's report on that operation. Many wait for that side of the story as anxiously as they have awaited the trial of those arrested that day.

Initially, charges were laid under a new Terrorism Suppression Act until the Solicitor-General ruled that the evidence, while "very disturbing", was not sufficient to establish that any of the 18 people arrested had been planning a particular terrorist act.

On Intellectual Property Rights and copyright...

To all of those who believe that it is their right to steal, take, or copy the work of others there are a couple examples in the news (well, came into my ambit) in the past two days.

First was an article in AP magazine. Oh, you will find this on the 'net but it is a real live paper type version that I have borrowed from the library.

It concerns an English photographer who saw one of his images being used in a magazine and he new darned well that he had not given permission for its use. He enquired and found that the "right" had been purchased from Flikr.

So, there is the first warning. If you are using Flikr for image storage, their "Terms and Conditions" retain the right to use any image and to sell that right to others. It does not limit the "owners" right in any way, but the "owner" does not retain a sole right to his IP.

All of that is quite legal, proper and above board. But how many really sit and read all of the fine print?

The second centres on a young(ish) guy from down south a-ways. Known as "the nek minit" man. He made a quick video which went viral, making "nek minit" the latest in inter-galactic patois.

He has been selling t's with "Nek Minit" on the front in Wellington, proceeds going to his work in reducing bullying in schools. He has (apparently) a detailed and intimate knowledge of that subject. Just down the road, one of the national shop chains in selling t's with "Nek Minute" on the front, proceeds to the chain and an Australian t maker.

There is another NZ company which has registered "Nek Minit" as a trademark. As of last night they had agreed to sell those rights to the man provided he comes up with the cost (a couple of hundred) to reimburse the cost.

A quiet reflection on history...

It is not quite 5 years since the blogger known as "Riverbend" signed off her "Baghdad Burning" blog with a final post from Damascus, Syria.

At that time she was soundly lauded as a beacon of hope and democracy through here cronicaling of events in Baghdad following the deposing of Hussein. In more recent times there have been doubts cast on the truth and validity of both her existence and her record of events.

I have thought of her a number of times over the past few weeks. What is she thinking now of her beautiful new home?

On occupying, occupation, and the morality of wealth...

There must be an interesting psychology lying behind protest and public disobedience on the one hand and the more general acceptance and approbation of the protest in wider society… or is the ol’ probligo getting just that little more reactionary in his old age?

F’rinstance –

Forty years ago, the prospect of giving a number of very important people a sleepless night and to inform them of contrary opinion was not only supported in spirit but in fact. The main person to be kept awake – if that were possible – was one LBJ, then Vice-P of the USofA. He was spending a night or three in Auckland in the course of a junket round the world drumming up support for a military action that was going rather sour in a remote and previously ignored little slice of land somewhere down and to the right of China.

That was considered to be all in good fun. It was “right” to protest the military invasion of a nation – whether by invitation of the government or not – irrespective of the validity and justification of the rationale behind the action. To have the figurehead of the military action at hand and within protest range was a prospect far too good to miss. Oh, and I can not help wondering how many marriages resulted from the protest – I know of one certainly; a very dear friend whose response to the toasts at his wedding breakfast included the observation that his marriage was LBJ’s fault, that he had met his wife in the gutter outside the Intercontinental Hotel when they were both about to be arrested.

Similarly, there was the occupation of Bastion Point by Ngati Whatua. That one lasted for over a year (507 days to be precise). The objective of the protest was the land itself; its ownership; the means by which that ownership was obtained; the right of the protesters to regain what they considered to be their manawhenua – ownership – of a piece of land that had gone from disputed to extremely valuable over a period of some 120 years. Long time readers might recall my rather jaundiced view of the disputes of “right of domain” (I think that is right) in the US. The Bastion Occupation coloured thinking here a very deep colour of red.

But something seems to have changed.

The “Occupy…” protests in NZ have seemed futile from the start. On a global scale, the validity of the point being made had some strength as my previous post acknowledged. I wrote that some 3 months after the “occupation” of Auckland, Christchurch and Wellington. In recent times – these past four weeks – there has been increasing activity by “the powers that be” to clear the protests from the respective central city sites. As this has been happening, the nature of the protesters has changed; there has been quite a clear acknowledgement from the movement that began it all that their message had been infiltrated and converted by others with other agendas.

In Wellington, the coincidental death in hospital of a local character known best as “Blanket Man” had become the central point to the protest. In Christchurch, the protest against “the 1%” had morphed into a local issue – the pay increase granted by the City Council to its Chief Executive. The Auckland protest had become more about “the right to occupy” rather than the figmental 1% with which it had started.

So, I guess, the ol’ probligo has joined the ranks of the reactionary. No longer is there much point to the protest of “the 99% against the 1%”. And that raises the sad question of “Why?”.

One of the fundamentals of “capitalism” relies upon a small number of people controlling a large proportion of total wealth and a large number of people relying on the owners of that capital to provide them with something approaching an adequate living. From the time of Adam Smith to Friedman and Samuelson that division has existed and been recognised. It is not going to vanish in the twinkle of a tax-man's eye; it depends from the "natural human instinct" (TFS might call it "God-given instinct"?) of advantage, possession and greed. The real point to remember here is that "corporate greed" is nothing more than "human greed" in a pin-stripe suit and briefcase.

On the other side - as well illustrated by all the "occupy" movements - is the opposite emotion of envy; the "natural human instincts" of disadvantage, of dispossession, of not having.

As I started, the connection of these mirror images would likely make an interesting study. For my part, I can sit back this evening and reflect that I have as much as I need, that in large part I have as much as I want, and the best part of all is that I earned the best part of it for myself.

How smug. How self-satisfied. How selfish...

This is what the 1% argument is about in the US...

From Sydney Morning Herald -

Mitt Romney, one of the richest men to run for president, says he "probably" pays an effective federal income tax rate of about 15 per cent - little more than most American workers struggling to make ends meet in the toughest economic conditions for 70 years.
...
Capital gains in the US are taxed generally at 15 per cent; likewise earnings from investments, such as dividends. Individuals earning up to $US34,500 a year fall in the 15 per cent federal income tax bracket, then pay 25 per cent to $US83,000. The top income tax rate is 35 per cent. (Americans also pay state and municipal taxes.)

Unlike investment earnings, wages are subject to Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.

Tax breaks reduce the effective rate for most people. According to the Tax Policy Centre, in Washington, the average US household would pay 9.3 per cent in federal income tax in 2011 - but 19.7 per cent in all federal taxes once imposts were included.

Even this old bugger can see the point here.

Harking back to the 1% debate in this country, the difference in income taxation depends not on the type of income but on the ability to employ a good tax accountant.

Dropped in old me old mate Al...

... and his latest post featured pictures of his family Christmas. I promised him I would set up the probligo's moko's. So, in order of age -

Alexia and Mikaela...


Emily, Blake, and Hannah.

Road Safety...

Clive Matthews-Wilson (of dog and lemon guide fame) reckons that median barriers will save lives on our roads.

Yes of course they will, idiot. Simply because there will be no opportunity for overtaking, for travelling any faster than the slowest vehicle ahead...

His comment about children in 100 years not believing the present opposing traffic conditions on our roads? Those children will probably not believe that ordinary joe-in-the-street people were permitted to control lumps of metal travelling at 100kph anywhere.

I left a comment over at Karl Du Frene's place that I treat every other driver as having the intelligence of a 6 year old. Tis true! Sober or not, there are individuals out there with no more intelligence than that. They can be seen driving anything from bicycle to SUV, but are far more apparent at the latter end than the former.

On being occupied, and the process of occupation...

There was a time, within my lifetime, that "occupied" had meanings ranging from "being used" as in a house or toilet, to "doing something" deriving from the idea of "occupation". The active meaning of the latter has now transmogrified to include the first, so that the idea of "occupation Wall St" and its international derivatives has made a profession of inhabiting a space to prevent its use by others. Perhaps on reflection that idea is not as new as it has been presented. F'rinstance it was a regular family occurance for one member (usually my mother) to complain about the toilet being used as a reading room; a practice that went as far as the old man installing a small bookshelf on the wall behind the toilet so that books were not left on the floor.

So that history has somewhat coloured my attitude to those who have occupied Wall St, or closer to home, Aotea Square. Add to that a strong feeling that it was the wrong people making the wrong protest about the wrong thing and you might begin to understand why the ol probligo has been fairly quiet on the occupy front. OK, and to take the point from a recent post me old mate Al put up, I will explain why.

The wrong people? It is usual in recent times for protest to be led by the young, the idealist, those who want to improve this world for their own benefit. There is nothing wrong with that really, but I do think that the protest should be led by those who have put their faith in a system in expectation that they would gain due benefit for their participation and have been sadly let down as a consequence of their trust.

The wrong protest? The right protest would be against those whose actions led to the loss. The bankers are in part to blame, no question! But I do not believe them to be the reason, though they are part of the cause. The politicians are no more to blame than the bankers. Politicians respond to the same kind of pressures as bankers; to give people what they want. I don't think that individuals are at fault either. So to protest about the "profits made by the bankers" is a waste of time in my book. And that leads to the last...

The wrong thing? The fault really starts with the fundamental nature of our society; the basis of which is measuring societal success in terms of profligance, material and monetary wealth rather than ethic, virtue and contribution.

To which end comes a book review that is very a propos the general theme. Debt (written by David Graebe) is a book which I shall be reading as soon as I can lay my hands on a copy through the local library.

Debt's striking synchronicity with OWS should not overshadow the fact that it's also a formidable piece of anthropological scholarship. The book spans the concept's evolution from the great Axial Age civilizations—adapting Karl Jaspers's label to describe the period between 800 BCE and 600 CE in Greece, India, and China—into the age of global conquest, and finally though its bizarre mutations over the past forty years. As Graeber shows, debt could not have taken the form that it did during the Axial Age without the appearance of currency, but it was also far from being only, or even principally, an economic matter. Debt was originally a moral and cosmological notion, about our debt to the gods (in India), to our parents (in China), or to the cosmos (in Greece, and sometimes in India).

I need to put the idea of debt into the context of my opening argument. Bear in mind here that I am using "debt" in both sides of the transaction; it is an obligation, it is the act of being obliged to another, of owing.

The change that has taken place is from a communal debt to creator, to cosmos, to the principle of personal debt. The measurement of personal debt I suspect does precede currency by some great margin. As evidence of that I can point to Maori who, before European contact, had a strong sense of personal indebtedness which could lead to either death or enslavement as payment of those debts. There was no monetary measurement of either cause nor settlement; cause could include losing mana (societal position) to the "debtor" requiring utu (revenge for the loss and reinstatement) as payment.

In the barter economy, survival would have depended upon ethic and virtue (like simple honesty) in dealings between individuals. Hence an agreement to provide in return for a provision (work for work, work for material object) could also operate without the need for currency.

I suspect that currency was put in place primarily so that those in power - the mafia of the time - could easily obtain a portion of the value of each individual's global indebtedness. That value in return was used to obtain the services necessary to maintain the power to collect; the coertion that libertarians like to hate.

To return to the review -

The guiding principle of Graeber's sweeping global history is that debt must not remain the exclusive property of economic historians, and moreover, that anthropologists are better equipped to take on the issue. The foundational myth on which economics rests, and which Graeber relishes debunking, is the "touchingly utopian" idea that money emerged directly out of primitive barter systems and had only to do with interest-maximizing exchange. Arguing against this from an anthropological perspective, Graeber claims that debt is the basis of society, and as such is inherently ineliminable. He illustrates this point through the example of debt to one's parents: to seek to cancel that debt would be impossible. Graeber describes a system of gift-giving in traditional societies that takes place over time, and involves gifts of slightly more or less value than the ones that preceded them, thus ensuring that everyone is always slightly in debt or in credit to everyone else. This sort of debt, he says, is nothing less than the continual creation of society. It is not so much that we owe something to society, but that society "just is our debts."

But there is also a foundation principle that has not changed in all of that time; from the time of the Axis Wars. It is a principle that I would dearly like to see whether Graebe has picked up on; it is the main reason for wanting to read his book. It is the action that society took against people who did not comply with the "accepted debt" under which they lived. In times past (and I base this on the Ancient Greeks in particular) the consequence of not complying with societal expectations was to be excluded from the protection of that society. That would mean living in what was essentially enemy territory, making and getting as best one could; truth be told it was an effective death sentence.

That prompted the idea that the process of indebtedness has changed indeed, and changed most rapidly over the past 300 years. The bridge at that time between cottage industry to industrialisation saw changes to society, and not least to the processes of economics. That change continues. It is evidenced by the recent (the last 40 years) change toward the "technology based" society.

The debt to society no longer exists. Debt has evolved to the extent that it is now expressed solely in currency terms. Debt is now owed to others, in return for complying with societal expectations.

From the review, it seems that I will not at all agree with Graebe's conclusion, no matter how much I might agree with his rationale.

[Graebe] believes that ... at a moment when capitalism seems unsustainable, the great hope for the future is to turn back to traditional human economies of mutual, loving indebtedness. For Graeber, capitalism is as much a fantasy as any utopian option: "We could no more have a universal world market," he writes, "than we could have a system in which everyone who wasn't a capitalist was somehow able to become a respectable, regularly paid wage laborer with access to adequate dental care. A world like that has never existed and never could exist. What's more, the moment that even the prospect that this might happen begins to materialize, the whole system starts to come apart."

One of the problems of history is that there is no winding back the clock. I do not think that a graceful return to (for example) an agrarian society is any more possible than the Russians or the Chinese have tried to make it. It may come about if there is a cataclysmic close to industrialisation - the kind of cataclysm that made the dinosaurs extinct be it physical disaster or disease.

I think that what I am struggling with is the separation of "capitalism" as an economic process from the underlying engine that "requires" continual growth. To that extent I know that I already disagree with Graebe but I acknowledge that the disagreement could be based upon differing ideas of what "capitalism" is.

If there is an evolutionary step to come from the current and future economic crises it is going to have to start with a re-evaluation of the relationship between society, capital, and the idea of indebtedness. In particular, the idea that societal expectations can be met by possession of material wealth will have to change; the idea that societal wealth can be represented by increasing personal indebtedness will have to change; the idea that there is a free lunch for some may have to go as well.

On the subject of strange things and ...

...an idle moment at the office desk found this interesting juxtaposition.


Chance? Or intended?

The perturbing case of the missing link...

Now here’s a thing. This article humped into the ol’ probligo’s scanners a short while back, a propos of nothing very much at all. I think it was from following sub-links. Anyhoos, I picked up the address and saved as it is an interesting topic and has some useful potential.



I dropped off the net and then tried to find it again a short while later. Nothing! Search Granny Herald with their own engine. Nothing! Hmmm… something not quite right here! Search again “Nat china cash”; most recent result is 2007. “Nat china donation”; zip! “China national donation”; latest is dated April 2011 about ANZAC poppies in the South Island. Even “Chinese cash nat” (three words from the headline) only picks up an article of 8 December concerning Chinese involvement in forestry CNIF.



Very strange indeed!!

In the wake of the jonkey...

From Spiegel, by way of ALDaily comes thoughts on the state of politics and, directly from that, of democracy as a political form.

Habermas is an 82 y-o "philosopher" who has some considerable standing in Europe in particular and his name has passed my way on occasion in the past as well.

Jürgen Habermas, 82, wants to get the word out. He's sitting on stage at the Goethe Institute in Paris. Next to him sits a good-natured professor who asks six or seven questions in just under two hours -- answers that take fewer than 15 minutes are not Habermas' style.

Usually he says clever things like: "In this crisis, functional and systematic imperatives collide" -- referring to sovereign debts and the pressure of the markets.

Sometimes he shakes his head in consternation and says: "It's simply unacceptable, simply unacceptable" -- referring to the EU diktat and Greece's loss of national sovereignty.

...

In the past, there were enemies; today, there are markets -- that's how the historical situation could be described that Habermas sees before him. He is standing in an overcrowded, overheated auditorium of the Université Paris Descartes, two days before the evening at the Goethe Institute, and he is speaking to students who look like they would rather establish capitalism in Brussels or Beijing than spend the night in an Occupy movement tent.

...

Habermas accepts all this without complaint. He steps up to the lectern and explains the mistakes that were made in constructing the EU. He speaks of a lack of political union and of "embedded capitalism," a term he uses to describe a market economy controlled by politics. He makes the amorphous entity Brussels tangible in its contradictions, and points to the fact that the decisions of the European Council, which permeate our everyday life, basically have no legal, legitimate basis. He also speaks, though, of the opportunity that lies in the Lisbon Treaty of creating a union that is more democratic and politically effective. This can also emerge from the crisis, says Habermas. He is, after all, an optimist.

...

He rails against "political defeatism" and begins the process of building a positive vision for Europe from the rubble of his analysis. He sketches the nation-state as a place in which the rights of the citizens are best protected, and how this notion could be implemented on a European level.

He says that states have no rights, "only people have rights," and then he takes the final step and brings the peoples of Europe and the citizens of Europe into position -- they are the actual historical actors in his eyes, not the states, not the governments. It is the citizens who, in the current manner that politics are done, have been reduced to spectators.

His vision is as follows: "The citizens of each individual country, who until now have had to accept how responsibilities have been reassigned across sovereign borders, could as European citizens bring their democratic influence to bear on the governments that are currently acting within a constitutional gray area."

(emphasis is mine)

That is based upon a premise that government as a process has changed; that it no longer serves "the people" (as in the catch-cry of old); that the process of government has become the means of perpetuating the careers of the "representatives". There is a strong parallel here with the "statism" cry of the libertarians. There are parallels to the "anti-socialism" of the Republicans.

(Confirmation Bias warning here!)

Very near the top of google (on the very first page) in response to "politic opinion europe economy" comes this -

On the other hand the economic policies exercised by the EU as a whole, with anachronistic, counter-productive, centralized protectionist policies, with an increasingly aging population and with the accumulation of excessive debts at private and public level; left the continent in a position of witnessing too little growth based on too much debt - an unsustainable cycle. The European leadership seeks to address the cancer of debt in all of Europe, both eurozone and EU, by means of issuing more debt. This is in practice what the EFSF is, the "stability bonds" and the ECB monetizing debts will be. There can be no end to the cost once new debt is issued to pay for the old one. Only sustainable growth, emancipated from cumbersome bureaucratic techniques can fix the problems EU is facing.

In another more recent post he concludes -

All this is caused by the denial of the powers of the European (and local) establishment, to accept that the crisis is fundamentally caused by quasi-bankrupt banks and by a single currency that should have never been created, but was produced to satisfy the arrogance of its architects, who thought that they could design an economic project to achieve political ends.

That does beg the question - fairly severely - of the cause of the "quasi-bankruptcy" of European banks. Was it the result of the same lending policies as led to the demise of Lehmanns and the need to rescue several other American banks as well as BOS in Britain? Was it the result of the prospect of default on sovereign debt by PIIGS? He is right in that current policies are aimed more at perpetuation rather than cure.

And at this point I can tie back directly to the Jonkey and his government's policies for the next three years. First contrast between NZ and Europe is that not one of the European governments is proposing the sale of government owned assets. Is this because they do not exist? Someone could help me with that one please.

More to Habermas' point, none of the governments in the PIIGS grouping has said anything at all about the real problems. I like Protos-stavrou's comment on the CAP in Europe - About 40% of the total expenditure of the Europe group is subsidy for a sector that produces 2% of GDP. I mean to say, that definitely comes under the "Say WHAT!!??!!" heading.

It also raises the point made by Whanga-Ray (returning here to the Jonkey) that one of the easier targets for the new government will be universal superannuation. That is likely, but it is also a problem for the Jonkey. The logical solution is to defer the qualification age to, say, 67. There is one major difficulty - that was Labour's policy and has already been put down by Jonkey as not an option. There are some quite attractive alternatives within that major strategy - such as paying less super for earlier take-up, more for later take-up. Will Jonkey sugar the pill? I doubt it.

Whenever the Gnats have talked of reducing government expenditure they have always taken the direct route; first to go are the budget items which will lose the least votes, the items which have received the greatest criticism in the past and so the likes of adult education bites the dust; next in line are those who vote for "them", and so we have the reductions in day-care subsidies, changes to the DPB and Unemployment benefits; then...

There is no question that the Jonkey is almost solely responsible for the ressurrection of Winnie the Pooh. His reported comments (directly attributed to the tea-pot tape and reported by W-t-P himself) that NZ First's supporters were "dying out" have created a multitude of Erinnyes that will be richly deserved for the next three years. To make matters worse for the Jonkey, every step he takes toward monkeying with the rate of superannuation is going to create severe pains in the back seats.

And that comes back to Habermas -

Jürgen Habermas is angry. He's really angry. He is nothing short of furious -- because he takes it all personally.

He leans forward. He leans backward. He arranges his fidgety hands to illustrate his tirades before allowing them to fall back to his lap. He bangs on the table and yells: "Enough already!" He simply has no desire to see Europe consigned to the dustbin of world history.

"I'm speaking here as a citizen," he says. "I would rather be sitting back home at my desk, believe me. But this is too important. Everyone has to understand that we have critical decisions facing us. That's why I'm so involved in this debate. The European project can no longer continue in elite modus."

Enough already! Europe is his project. It is the project of his generation.

...

And then he's really angry again: "I condemn the political parties. Our politicians have long been incapable of aspiring to anything whatsoever other than being re-elected. They have no political substance whatsoever, no convictions."

Hear!Hear!!

And, I guess, that leads down a path toward the "Occupy..." protests of the past few months. The WSJ I think has a recent op-ed talking about "blind campaign donations" of past and the next Presidential election in the US. As I pointed out in my last post, DHC laments the connect between Maori Party and iwi corporations. That is a trend that started decades ago in NZ with the Round Table and similar political "ginger groups" with the last major infiltration coming from the Brethren Church. Forget the "open market" arguments, they are as relevant as climate change in this context.

This from Wiley Post says it all...

Almost the end of The Agony -

I quite enjoy reading Deborah Hill Cone in the busyness section of Granny Herald. Not because I necessarily agree with her POV, but simply because it is often one of the better writes in the paper.

And so it is this morning with her take on elections and electorates. In fact I think that I can sympathise with her personal agony of being an Epsom Saltie.

What caught my eye was her wave in the general direction of one of the elephants currently occupying the room. Hers is the one carrying the "youth unemployment" label.

Billionaire Sir Richard Branson this week wrote a piece warning the British Chancellor he is creating a "lost generation" of young people who will never know work, and advocated some drastic policies.

In this country, it is still too much of a buzz kill to address the reality of long-term youth unemployment of 25 to 30 per cent, or how to transform an underclass of people stuck on welfare.

But she actually closes with a very accurate posit on the nature of NZers and their attitude to elections and governmental retaliation (translate that with the story of the old radio programme earlier...).

We feel the decisions that affect us are taken way above our heads, in so much as they are the operation of large economic forces over which we have no control. This is probably true. But sometimes we do have at least a small opportunity to exert our agency.

Tomorrow is one of those days. I just wish I could vote for someone who has woken up.

Which earns from me a heartfelt "Hear, hear!"

Anyone who has the slightest interest...

... in the future of democracy in this country MUST go read this!!!

What a storm in a teapot!!

It begins with all of the anticipation - …will he won’t he will he join the dance… - but not a sign of a lobster at all. For two weeks the media waited agasp for their invitation to the event of all electoral events; the expected invitation for Banksie to share a pot of tea with none other than the PM and the acknowledgement that Banksie was in fact a Nat in all but name for electoral purposes. Not only that, but the pot of tea was to come with shared electoral biscotti. In return for an undertaking (always an interesting word that, in circumstances such as these) to provide stable government the PM himself would ensure that his party would not actively contest the seat in which Banksie is standing.



The appointed day arrives. A media scrum is put down in a café on Broadway – another of those interesting coincidences that passes everyone by - the limousine draws up, the Banksie appears magically with entourage who dust the pavement from car to café and Banksie and PM repair to a table for a nice cuppa.



Once the media have played their part in supporting the election campaigns of the two, they are ushered out to press their noses against the windows and wonder just what PM’s talk about over a nice cuppa. Well, one industrious member of their number found out by (inadvertently) leaving his radio-mike in a bag on the table.



Since then, all manner of unprintables and several hundred tumbrills full of printables have been flying through the air.



Quite amazing then that no one has asked what the PM and Banksie were drinking. Choysa? Bell? Twinings? Or did the PM go the whole way and treat Banksie to a pot of Uncle Don's Best?

Elections 2011 - Fit the Third

Wednesday -

RNZ on Morning Report as I was avoiding the rush traffic between here and there included a “debate” between the leaders of the “minor parties”. Quote of the 20minute duration; Dunny himself with “Tureia is right up to the point where ideology steps in.”.


Thursday -

SMH this morning is trumpeting the fact that the UN has rated Australia only 0.1 points (on a 0 – 1 scale) behind Norway.

After reading through the whole article, one finds (in the very last para) that the top five are Norway, Australia, Netherlands, US, and NZ.

Say what? NZ is in there at number five? That just can not be true!!! After all, NZers are leaving in droves, herds even, for the much greener pastures of Australia in particular. It is (we are told on the hustings) the problem of the economy. This is why we have to lift our wage rates to compete. That is why our productivity is stuffed. We are so far behind Australia that it is not funny!!!

Well, that deserves a “Yeah, right!!” of the first water.

There is a dose of realism that needs to be taken with the sugar. NZ has vulnerabilities internally, and most especially externally.

The internal exposures stem primarily from size; we are the very small branch office in a very large global multi-corporate organisation; we are the very small leaf at the far end of a long branch of an oak tree. The internal threats is one thing that we should be concentrating on over the next three weeks. Decisions made now are going to shape what this country looks like in three and probably fifteen years as well. My greatest fear is that none of the relatively sane parties has the guts and the intelligence to go beyond the application of ideology to the solution of pressing problems.

There is one instance where I think this combination of belly driven common sense is becoming apparent and that is in the form of Papandreou and his proposal to take the Greek economic woes to the electorate. No, seriously; I mean, stop laughing like that!

This article from The Age gives a pretty fair run-down on the choices; the consequences. That it might be “unspeakable” a distinct possibility is exactly why I think Papandreou has taken this course.

If the electorate chooses to turn down the bail-out offered by the EU it will so do in the knowledge (I would hope) of the consequences. That, I submit, is exactly what Papandreou wants. If the electorate is not going to stand behind him and support the economic rebuilding that is needed then why bother making the start. I can well imagine that his political career would end the next day. This is essentially the thesis of Thomas’ “return to the drachma” article.

There are many who paint – with Rolf Harris like speed – terrifying portraits of the result of Greek default on its international loans. It would, we are told, lead to the failure of the Euro, the collapse of most of Europe’s banks and financial institutions.

So, I want to stand back for a moment and look at that. If Greece were to refuse to comply with the conditions imposed by the EU what would really happen?

There is already in place an agreement to write off 50% of Greece’s borrowing. That is being soaked by the banks and financial institutions. The other 50% will largely fall on the same funds sources. But, and no one I have read says this, there is also agreement to bail Greece out to the tune of a very large sum indeed. That, in addition, is being expressed in a way that implies the presence of a very large “AND” that would follow; the agreement to provide further funding down the track with Greece’s continuing compliance with EU restraints. What happens to those agreements and promises should Greece refuse? They immediately become void.

Germany and France, in particular, have promised the greatest part of that funding; most in the form of guarantees but with the provision of immediate cash as well. Hands up those who remember the NZ deposit guarantee scheme that was implemented with almost indecent haste (let’s face it, the response was essential) a couple years back. That is where the Euro zone nations should be putting their efforts if Greece fails to meet their demands.

And, I think, Papandreou would be among the first to say, “Good on yer, mate. Take care of home first.”.

I follows on from that to back at home here where a small number of young and enthusiastic improvers of the universe have joined in the fun and games (that started in Wall St NY) of occupying places. In Auckland they chose Aotea Sq, in Dunedin the Octagon. Their main beef is the power and greed of the major banks. Watching those same major banks taking a bit of a pasting on the fallout from Greece might have them smiling. Hearing that the EU is bailing out those same banks will no doubt add a great deal of fuel to the fire.

I can but wonder how many of those yaeiou will pause for a moment to reflect on the problems that Greece would be facing.

Elections 2011 - Fit the second

No, I did not watch the “Leadership Debate” on the tv last night. I had a few better things to do.

No, I am not sorry. (That is the same kind of answer as “I am not going to raise GST”.)

From the reports, seen and read, I have the impression that it was pretty much as scripted. The Jonkey was not surprised by anything that the Gofer raised, though there is a suspicion that he was momentarily a bit backed up by the delivery. Similarly, there seems to have been no surprises for the Gofer.

And that really is the point. These leadership presentations are not much more than proving to the electorate that the leaders they are voting for are not zombies, are not frothing at the mouth maniacs, can and do hold something that could pass for a conversation. But, as politics keeps reminding us, that is about as far as it goes.

The pundits and propounders are all weighing the outcome as even, favouring whichever side of the divide they sit.

Of course, there are always the likes of Cactus Kate who is trumpeting Brash Donnie’s “triumph” over a hapless tv3 reporter. In that instance the script only ran to two words. Brash Donnie was not able to expand past his robot-like inchantation of “deceitful bastard”. CK herself seemed stuck in a groove to prove the journo’s typo revealed a total inability to spell. Yep, well as I pointed out in a submitted comment there are a lot of suitable alternative epithets. Rather than ascribing to the Chris Christie school of political attack the Donnie could perhaps get a whole lot more benefit from a quiet review of a few of the archive tapes of the master, old Mouldie himself. As for handling unwanted journos, Mouldie’s attack on Tom Scott has to be the pinnacle.

There is a rich vein of commentary in this. It follows the interdependence of politician and journalist; both need the other. In Muldoon v Scott, the dependence was “broken” because Scott became “expendable” to Muldoon. There were far more servile channels he could use and Scott was just too hostile. Personally, I think that Scott was doing his job well and that was to get Muldoon pissed off…

There is a similar conflict in the relationship between Granny Herald and The Speaker just before Parliament rose for the RWC.

Elections - 2011 Fit the First.

I have a real problem at the moment.

Do I vote for the Jonkey, the Nats?

Or do I vote for the Gofer, the Labourlites?

Of the minor parties; ACT has self-obessessd on the occupiers; Winnie the Pooh has ressurrected for the third time; the Greens have taken a jump to the left; Maori will lose their Mana with the departure of Pita and Tariana; Tamahere is making a joke of the idea of mana; the rest are just lost in the wilderness.

The problem is this.

The Nats have not done anything that drastically changes the economy, personal rights or the general state of society. In other words, they have not done much atall at all. That is something that they want to change. After spending three years borrowing in excess (well in excess) of requirements for reasons that were hazy at the time and incomprehensible now they are now suggesting the sale of assets such as power supply utilities so that the proceeds are available for a National Infrastructure Fund.

I guess that makes as much sense as a long-haul carrier selling half his truck so that he can buy a car for the wife.

Labour has just one problem. The Gofer. He sounds too much like an earnest scout master trying his hardest to sell raffle tickets in the local pub. They have a new team. The old guard left with absolutely no regard for succession, or for the continuity of ideas. Bring Back John A!!! The ideas that have come forward thus far have merit. Well, there is only one that has not originated in the powerhouse of the FOL. The Gofer is right about one thing; the minimum age for national superannuation MUST increase to 67, and I would bring the idea forward by about ten years for what he is promoting. Give him credit for what is, so far, the most realistic policy plank put to the electorate.

The rest can be discounted. Totally. I can't even raise the energy to consider Maori for a protest vote. I know the Tai Tokerau Labour candidate and he is not a bad chook. The Nat candidate similarly, with the proviso that he has to support the sale of state revenue earning assets.

Indications at the moment are that public support is on the side of retaining MMP. This is a good thing. I am not going to lose sleep (yet) on that quarter.

Next weekend is for friends; the Monkfish and co have opened their door. Good food, good wine, good company; three that just can not be beat.

A sense of Justice...

...probably not intended for a moment, but I get a strong sense of appropriate justice from the exchange of 1 Israeli held by the Palestinians for the return of roughly 1000 Palestinians held in Israeli jails.

It is not just a passing, fleeting idea. It grows with thought and further threads attach.

Consider, and this is where I started, that the ratio is very roughly reflective of the number of Palestinians killed for each Israeli killed over the past 50 years.

Consider, and this was the second thread, the length of time the Palestinians have been in prison. Consider the opportunity that length of time that the Israelis have had to pursuade, condition, convince (thesaurus alternatives to "brainwash") the prisoners of the benefits of being part of Israeli society.

Consider also that if Israeli justice was right; that these prisoners are the murderers and terrorists that they claim then Palestine is deserving of having them back. I acknowledge that, as the Germans found out in France and other parts of Europe, the murderer and terrorist to an occupying force can be a hero to the oppressed.

As I said, there is a sense of appropriate justice.