On being hypocritical ...

Just down the road from us, about 5 minutes by car or 25 minutes on foot, is a Presbyterian church.

This one is notable for the fact that it originally resided some distance from its present location. I also consider it somewhat notable for its advertising. So it was two weeks ago when I drove past, in a somewhat foul humour and saw their latest offering. Regrettably, I missed getting a photo (no, you do not need to know why) of the sign in question but it rang a very loud bell when I saw it.

It read -

God does not discriminate.

Religions do.

Now think about that for a moment. If you can not pick where I am about to go, then perhaps take a few minuites out to read the opening pages of the Gita (as a purely independent source) which says at some length what St Columba's has condensed to two lines.

I had the minor misfortune to trip over this wally who would (very likely) agree with the sentiment of the sign. Just as long, you understand, that it applies solely to Islam. I suspect that there would be quite a number of past visitors to these pages who would agree with the patriotism (and that is both nation and religion patriotism to which I refer) of the gent from Chowan River.

Pointing out the application of St Columba's general statement to the opposite would be totally futile.

On friendships...

Thanks to my old mates at ALD this interesting little essay appeared in The Wilson Quarterly.

Since Asimov wrote The Naked Sun, Americans have been engaged in wholesale flight from one another, decamping for suburbs and Sunbelt, splintering into ever smaller households, and conducting more and more of their relationships online, where avatars flourish. The churn rate of domestic relations is especially remarkable, and has rendered family life in the United States uniquely unstable. “No other comparable nation,” the sociologist Andrew J. Cherlin observes, “has such a high level of multiple marital and cohabiting unions.”

Oceans of ink have been spilled on these developments, yet hardly any attention is paid to the one institution—friendship—that could pick up some of the interpersonal slack. But while sizzling eros hogs the spotlight these days—sex sells, after all—too many of us overlook philia, the slower-burning and longer-lasting complement. That’s ironic, because today “friends” are everywhere in our culture—the average Facebook user has 130—and friendship, of a diluted kind, is our most characteristic relationship: voluntary, flexible, a “lite” alternative to the caloric meshugaas of family life.

But in restricting ourselves to the thin gruel of modern friendships, we miss out on the more nourishing fare that deeper ones have to offer. Aristotle, who saw friendship as essential to human flourishing, shrewdly observed that it comes in three distinct flavors: those based on usefulness (contacts), on pleasure (drinking buddies), and on a shared pursuit of virtue—the highest form of all. True friends, he contended, are simply drawn to the goodness in one another, goodness that today we might define in terms of common passions and sensibilities.

Akst points to the likes of Ralph Waldo Emerson as the genesis of the self-centred individual rather than social person. I don't know that the answer is that simple in fact. Akst's example of the "male buddie films" as a "social contra-indicator" is also open to debate. That is why I offered the following comment...

Of the comments thus far the two that strike the strongest echos for me are David Jewett and RameshRaghuvanshi; the former for his very detailed personal insight, the latter for his chink-hole peep into the divided society.

I do not make friends easily. In that respect I am perhaps in the same category as David, although I do not dredge the internet into the picture as a rationalisation. I have always had a reticence to be involved with other people and particularly other men. The reasons are manifold. Some are echoed by Ramesh.

On the other side to Akst's (excellent) article is that there are times when man (generic) needs solitude as much as he needs close friendships. That has been (in the past) my justification for being so insular and "self-reliant".

Is it likely that our society's disconnection with personal relationships is the result of that desire (and hence the attraction of the internet where friendships are far more ephemeral than real life)? In old history, the community and its inter-relationships could be avoided by a simple walk into the distance. Today (and despite the divisions Ramesh notes) that pressure of "community" is far greater and unavoidable.

"Friendships" on the internet are easy, passing and almost always strongly boosted by a search for "people who are of the same mind".

In real life, strong friendships are far more difficult - as Akst points out. They require regular maintenance. They do evolve, and can often eventually die through the events as he describes.

How to view the news?

TF Stern has posted a "comparative" of the presentation of the stories about the Moscow terrorist action, and the arrest of "freedom fighters" in Illinois and Michigan. He opens thusly -

A couple of stories this morning give a glimpse of how the news media portray dangerous factions of society. See if you can figure out the bias as the details are brought out.

The article he links is an AP feed on Foxnews (Oh dear how the Right have sold out!!). It starts -

DETROIT -- Nine alleged members of a right-wing Christian militia group that was girding for battle with the Antichrist were charged Monday with plotting to kill a police officer and slaughter scores more by bombing the funeral -- all in hopes of touching off an uprising against the U.S. government.

Seven men and one woman believed to be part of the Michigan-based Hutaree militia were arrested over the weekend in raids in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. The ninth suspect was arrested Monday night after a search in rural southern Michigan.

TF opens out his critique -

The article went on to name the faction Christian group Hutaree, obviously one of the right wing terrorist groups mentioned recently. I do have a question, exactly what crime was committed or is it now permissible to arrest American citizens for thinking about committing a crime; you know, like in the movie Minority Report with Tom Cruise?

Now that is a fair question. It is one I have asked as well, following the misguided and unjustified raids in the Ureweras.

The news that I read, courtesy of the NZ (Granny) Herald, opened the corresponding article like this -

DETROIT - Nine suspects tied to a Christian militia that was preparing for the Antichrist were charged with conspiring to kill police officers, then kill scores more by attacking a funeral using homemade bombs, federal prosecutors said.

The Michigan-based group, called Hutaree, planned to use the attack on police as a catalyst for a larger uprising against the government, according to newly unsealed court papers.

US Attorney Barbara McQuade said agents moved quickly on the group because its members were planning a violent mission sometime in April.

Members of the group, including its leader, David Brian Stone, also known as "Captain Hutaree," were charged following FBI raids over the weekend on locations in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana.

Seven people were arraigned in Detroit on Monday, and another one of Stone's sons, Joshua, is being sought.

Interestingly, though the article does quote individuals interviewed by AP and is similar in structure to the Fox article, it is actually by-lined to an individual - Corey Williams. Does that make it any more valid?

For my part, I have an element of sympathy with TF's criticism. It is a law-enforcement action which has parallels dangerously close to the Urewera raids. That makes it not a good thing but a bad.

I will watch with interest, TF, and I will be interested to hear when these people appear in Court to face charges. The Urewera seven have been charged, are on bail at present, and with no date as yet set for the formal trial to begin. I hope that American justice is somewhat swifter than ours.

The second article, again from Fox News, TF introduces like this -

The other AP story in today’s headlines, Homicide Bombers Kill 38 on Moscow Subway . That had me wondering, “What kind of folks strap on explosives and detonate themselves with the intent of taking out as many innocent civilians as possible?”

The answer was given; but not exactly in clear and understandable English. The AP preferred to use coded text rather than come right out and say, “Muslim Terrorists”; instead these were “rebels from the restive Caucasus region that includes Chechnya”. I like that “restive region”; sounds like a vacation poster slogan instead of an area of the world infested with Muslim Terrorists who have declared war on infidels where ever they might be.

Just a bit further into the article:

“The head of Russia's main security agency said preliminary investigation places the blame on rebels from the restive Caucasus region that includes Chechnya, where separatists have fought Russian forces since the mid-1990s.”

That really clears things up, “separatists”; well why didn’t you say so? You should hear the music from the Wizard of Oz playing as you enter the Emerald City, the door keeper stroking his mustache as you get a glimpse of the Horse of a Different Color.

His only quote from the story -

“Russian police have killed several Islamic militant leaders in the North Caucasus recently, including one last week in the Kabardino-Balkariya region. The killing of Anzor Astemirov was mourned by contributors to two al-Qaida-affiliated Web sites.”

TF must have read no further because I am sure that he might have found greater value toward the end of the Fox article -

In February, Chechen rebel leader Doku Umarov warned in an interview on a rebel-affiliated Website that "the zone of military operations will be extended to the territory of Russia ... the war is coming to their cities."

Umarov also claimed his fighters were responsible for the November bombing of the Nevsky Express passenger train that killed 26 people en route from Moscow to St. Petersburg.

I wonder, unlike him, how he might have written had the FBI failed to take action against the Hutaree. I can not help but wonder had the Hutaree bombed government buildings on a scale compared with the Olkahoma bombing of some years back how he would have viewed the failure of law enforcement to prevent the commission of such a crime. His criticism is more than a bit OTT in my book, but lets look to the Herald's version of the same story -

Two female suicide bombers blew themselves up on Moscow's subway system as it was jam-packed with morning rush-hour passengers, killing at least 35 people and wounding more than 30, the city's mayor and other officials said.

Now I have to leave out at this point any further criticism of TF's conceptions and understanding of events as I am writing about differences in the presentation of the news, not an individual's understanding. Again there are similarities, close ones, between the Fox and Herald articles.

TF concludes -

Maybe it’s just me, being one of those right wing Christians with a concealed handgun permit just waiting for my opportunity to blast away from my easy chair while listening to Rush, Hannity or Beck; but has the news media forgotten how to report evenly and without prejudice or have they refused to do their job since being purchased by the Obama administration?

I guess that the validity of the struggle does not depend upon the oppression and direct impact of war, the strictures against the free conduct of religion. It depends far more on the religion of the insurgents. Because the mid-west arrested are Christian, and fighting against the US government they are the good guys. Because the Tchetchians are Muslim, they must be the bad guys, end of story.

Personally, both presentations of the two events struck me as reasonably, supportably, even-handed and objective. Perhaps that is the problem TF faced. There was not the rabid anti-Muslim invective he was expecting in the article from Russia, nor the warm fuzzy sympathy for right-minded Americans on the other.

There was not the clear reporting and open criticism of events presented Herald and other NZ media following the Urewera stupidity.

Sigh...

Ahura's comment, verbatim -

"I studied macro-economics as part of my professional qualifications and I do know a little bit about what constitutes an economy."

Oh ok, so it's only on macro-economics that you demand concrete steps and outlines then? [1]

"Yes, I did criticise the Bush Jnr administration. For the little jaunt he took into Iraq."

So you're angry that Iraqis are free from a tyrant and can choose their own destiny now? What about Afghanistan, was that also a little jaunt? [2]

"That criticism was based on my personal assessment of the evidence presented, was clearly explained, and (to my great surprise) has since proved to be largely correct ( the enquiry into British involvement in Iraq has reached the same conclusion, the basis for my assertion)."

So i take it you didn't have a outline of concrete actions to be taken instead to rid the world of Saddam Hussein? Also was that all you criticized about the Bush administration, nothing else accompanied by an outline of concrete actions to be taken? [3]

And are you saying you never criticized the actions of any other government, just Bush Jnr and his 'little jaunt' into Iraq? [4]

"I presume that Obama is, in your book wrong for wanting to bring "your boys" home?"

Yes, if be brought them home in defeat. Oh and i'm making the assumption that you mean soldiers and not small children.

And while you're on the subject of Obama and "the boys", what's your opinion on him authorizing the bombing of all those suspected "terrorists" in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Do you think he is wrong for not giving them fair trials? [5]

This is going to be fun... :)

[1] Outline only. General principles. Like for example the idea of "a deposit guarantee scheme" as implemented by Australia, Britain, and NZ. Or perhaps even "do nothing and see what happens".

[2] Afghanistan was supported by the international community. The evidence was relatively conclusive; that was where alQaeda was operating from.

Saddam was not the most pressing problem of the times. It was made so by a tin-pot President who persuaded two of his mates to go on a rumble.

The money spent on the war in Iraq alone would have made every man woman and child in Iraq rich beyond their wildest dreams. Why not just hand out the cash, with the US's favourite candidate printed on the bags? It makes as much sense.

Iraq was based upon failed, even falsified, evidence. There was no international mandate.

Saddam needed to be dealt with, no question; but then so did (still does) Mugabe and we do not see the US charging in to "bring democracy" there, do we?

Saddam needed to be dealth with, but then so did (still does) the military junta in Burma. We don't see the US charging over the hill to rescue the innocent there either, do we?

Saddam needed to be dealt with on the basis of sound evidence, not the paddock platters that were dealt out. Look to the evidence given to the British Commission of Enquiry to see what they were thinking at the time.

[3] See [2]. And yes, that was about my only criticism of the Bush administration.

[4] I criticise the NZ government whenever I think they got something as wrong as the US in Iraq. I have criticised, and praised, the British government as I see the occasion warrants. I have poked the bone at the Autralian government because baiting Aussies in good sport, particularly when they start acting like galahs.



It matters not if you think the US has "won" in Iraq or not. The probability of "democracy" surviving there in any recognisable form for more than 5 years after is less than 50/50; about the same time as it took Saddam to change things from "democracy" to dictatorship.

How a Stern response works - 1

Probligo, There is no simple answer; however, the numbers you show include all the free passes given to illegal aliens [1] and moochers living off those who actually do pay their fair share[2]. That having been said, another reason for high costs have to do with greedy lawyers making a fat living off civil court cases filed simply to make money rather than to correct some fault which may or may not have caused injury to their client. Regardless of the outcome, doctors have to protect against such suits, hospitals raise their prices and so on and so on [3].

Having watched our government screw up almost everything they get their hands on, what is to keep them from destroying the health care system far below any standard we now have? Nothing! [4]


This isn't about government providing health care so much as it has to do with government taking control of health care which in turn turns citizens into subjects. Subjects are much easier to control when you have their health controlled.[5]

Aside from the cost of doing business, there's another detail, that of Agency, the right of individuals to act on their own without having to bow and scrape to anyone.[6] Our system, as inefficient as it is, mostly due to government intervention I might add, does work to supply the best medical service anywhere in the world [7] as proven by the fact that world leaders come to the USA for treatment when the going gets ugly [8].

No, you can have your government health care doled out [9] and may you always enjoy good health; I'd have preferred the socialists we have here to have moved to a country which would more suit their desires and to have left the best form of government alone [10].

[1] Valid point number one. Do those illegals have green cards, TF? Alternatively, you have agreed that you would not find carrying a photo-id as being an insult to your freedoms (despite the fact that two of your most notorious enemies in Hitler's Germany and Soviet Russia had the same government controls). Why should the health system not ask "green card, please". Or perhaps you could have your number tattooed on your forearm! That would be even better, never leave it at home!

There is the first grouch here as well. It is the practice of using politically correct generalisations such as " all the free passes", "illegal aliens" and " those who actually do pay their fair share".

Now I do understand the category you think of as "illegal aliens". It is a very extensive group that ranges from Mexican wetbacks who pick fruit in California all the way through to ET himself. But in truth, what proportion of the total population would they represent. Here in NZ (yes, people do try very hard to immigrate here illegally) they might number in their hundreds. A "clean out" of illegal Polynesians(in the late 1970's), most Samoans and Tongans, in what became known as "The Dawn Raids" resulted in about 800 people being sent home and about 2000 being granted permanent residence eventually; in the main justified by the fact that they were employed in jobs no one else wanted.

Perhaps, just for me, you could explain your concept of "their fair share"? Is that just a politically correct code name for "only for themselves"? or perhaps "no more than I absolutely have to"? Or is it more a convenient way of dropping out of an unsupportable position?

[2] I have already dealt with the politically correct generalisation here. Still, valid point number two. NZ has its share of "free-loaders and moochers" too. It is probably as big a problem here as it is in the US.

Our current government (it is Conservative to the extent of being "right of centre) is arguing that that number includes women whose men have walked out (to Australia) to avoid paying family support, those teenage girls who get pregnant and whose families refuse to support them, and other instances of one parent families. There are some 40,000 on the DPB at present, about 1% of the total population.

Do you include unemployed in that total? Yep, they are freeloaders too.

How is about youngsters no longer covered by their parents insurance, but who are not able to afford their own insurance?

How about those aged over 55 whose insurers have told them "you are too much of a risk - insurance declined".

When did you last look at an insurance proposal form? Ever seen that question "Have you ever had a proposal or policy of insurance declined or cancelled? If yes, please provide full details." You automatically write or tick off "No" and pass on to the next. How much do you really know of insurance law? The principle of a "fiducial relationship"? The duty you have of full and relevant disclosure, and the consequences if the insurer gets the slightest whiff that you "forgot" something relevant.

[3]Valid point three. How to overcome the litigious nature of American life? Why does anyone in the US become a doctor? I certainly would not want to... By all means expect professional standards of health care.

But what you are getting is truly what you want - an unregulated society. After all, if locksmiths do not need to be registered, why should you expect doctors to be the same? It impinges on their God-given right to work as and how they please. Caveat emptor prevails. Pick the wrong one and you might be able to get yourself rich. Sue someone just because he cut your fingernails instead of curing your in-grown toenail. Who cares?

[4] You mean you are happy with the way things are? I'll repeat my previous question, TF. What will you do when you can no longer afford your health insurance? Go on Medicaid?

If it is broken, what have your political champions ever done to try and fix it? Anything? Ever? Why did their solutions not work?

[5] Political claptrap number three. If a Democrat government ever changed the system so it applied only to members of their party, what would be your solution? Mine would be armed insurrection.

[6] Political claptrap number four. I had heart surgery two years back. In what way did I have to "bow and scrape" in order to have that (life-saving to me) done? It was two spits better than my private insurance that refused to fix it "because it is a pre-existing condition". OK, I could have sued them, but there is no way I could afford to... That would have cost more than the surgery.

[7] ...providing US citizens with the 46th highest life expectancy in the world. If that is what the best can do, give me our second-rate health system any day.

[8] Yep, state leaders from places such as Israel, Iraq, Zimbabwe and Russia. Name one world leader from the EU, or any of the members of OECD, who has gone to the US for health care. There are none. They use the health system in their own country.

[9] Political claptrap five. Doled out? No. Sufficient resources to meet demand? Yes.

[10] Political claptrap six. You have the government and system that you deserve.

What is becoming apparent, TF, is that for reasons you can not explain - other than the fact that he is a Democrat - you do not agree with what Obama is doing. It becomes a matter of opposing simply because he is "one of them" and not "one of us". The important thing is to sling around as much shit as you can in the hope - vain hope I believe - that more of it will stick to others than does to yourself.

Your simplistic response that "the money does not matter - I leave that to my wife and my accountant" is clear evidence of that.

State of the Union...

This week's Listener has a fascinating article written by Jon Johansson giving account of his 12 month sabbatical in Washington DC.

The full text will be available here from 27 February, for safety's sake look around 1 March.

I am not going to even try to regurgitate the whole thing here. It is a fascinating and (for me at least) a somewhat frightening read on real paper. For any American it should at least give pause at the current state of the Union from an outside and objective point of view.

For those interested, there is a short bio for Johansson here and if you want to disagree with him personally you will find his blog here
but it is inactive since 2008.

AMERICA - BEWARE!! THE KIWIS ARE COMING!!

Over the past five years or so that the probligo has been living in the blogiverse he has learned just how fragile - and in so many ways - the average American psyche can be. Just look to the last post for the most recent instance; the inability of an individual to accept that facts can actually oppose standing preconceptions and long held beliefs. But this is not the time nor place for that debate - that is yet to and will come.

About two or three weeks back there was a considerable raruraru in the local (NZ) media about a proposal to move away from traditional pasture farmed dairying toward the techniques used in EUrope and the US with fully enclosed herds on "artificial" feeds. The advantages were many, and much outweighed the perceived costs of open farming.

Personally I hope that they fail. NZ's major advantage in all farming methods is not the "green and clean" message but the fact that our methods are natural; we convert water and sunlight into food.

Now - this last week - there have been reports coming through of Missouri (the US one, so that we are clear) reclaiming some 5% of the total US dairy market (such as this example). Apparently the US dairy state had been losing its markets and consequently suffering reduced production under the pressure of "increasing costs and decreasing returns". That despite what I suspect would be fairly substantial state and federal subsidies.

With milk prices so low and many dairy farmers losing money, the New Zealanders’ low-cost methods, which mostly involve a different way of feeding cows, are luring converts.

“Their impact has been so significant in our state that it’s hard to get your arms around it,” said David Drennan, executive director of the Missouri Dairy Association.

...

As recently as 1975, the state had 20,000 dairy farms and 333,000 dairy cows. Today, there are about 2,000 farms and less than one-third the number of cows.

A decade ago, businesses, farmers, bankers, academics and others gathered around a table in the Greene County Extension Office in Springfield to confront the crisis.

The group realized the business practices of the state’s dairy farms needed to improve.

The turn-round in production has come largely from four farms purchased, "modernised" and managed by Kiwis - the re-introduction of traditional pasture based farms of my countryside.

Kevin van der Poel remembers the skepticism and suspicion when he moved here four years ago from New Zealand with a newfangled approach to raising dairy cattle.

He heard the doubts, peppered with a tall tale or two.

When he started construction on rock walkways for moving cattle between pastures, the rumor spread that he was building housing for victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Some locals thought his cows seemed too thin.

In the radio programme on this topic last week (I still listen to the rural news and other rural based programmes) there was a delightful descrition of a field day held at one of the farms. Questions after the tour ranged from whether cows would get stones stuck in their hooves, to the problem of the cows having to walk too far and getting tired, and the consequent impact on production...

And so we come to -

Tony Finch understands why some people might resent the New Zealanders’ different approach and, ultimately, their success.

“People see that as a threat or a degree of arrogance that we do it right and they do it wrong,” said Finch, general manager of Grasslands Consultants, another New Zealand operation, with 9,000 cows on 10,000 acres around Monett.

“That’s been a struggle — to convince people that what we’re doing is not a threat to what they’re doing, but another way of doing it.”

In many ways, the New Zealanders are returning Missouri dairy farmers to their past.

Traditionally, all Missouri dairies were pasture-based. But, in the 1970s, many began to use confinement operations and increased grain feeding to boost milk production.

In the Ozarks, where most of the dairies are, costs rose as more feed needed to be delivered and more manure needed to be removed. Labor was scarce.
...
The operation, which the van der Poels run out of a nondescript yellow barn set back off a rural highway, pumps about $6 million annually into the local community, he said.

They employ 28 people, about a third of the number required to run a confinement dairy with a similar-size herd.

...thereby returning to my wish for the "enclosed farming" developments in Southland to bite the dust before too many people waste their money on them.

Well, I guess that some questions...

are just too hard to answer.

Those who read TF Stern with any regularity will know his politic, his attitude to global warming. His latest writing centres on an article reporting an incident at a press conference involving one Professor Scneider.

McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns.


He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate – where leaked emails have revealed that a senior British professor deleted data and encouraged colleagues to do likewise if it contradicted their belief in Global Warming.
...
Professor Schneider, who is a senior member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said he would not comment on emails that may have been incomplete or edited.

During some testy exchanges with McAleer, UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistants twice tried to cut short McAleer’s question.

However as the press conference drew to a close Professor Schneider’s assistant called armed UN security guards to the room. They held McAleer and aggressively ordered cameraman Ian Foster to stop filming. The guard threatened to take away the camera and expel the film crew from the conference if they did not obey his instructions to stop filming Professor Schneider.

The guard demanded to look at the film crews press credentials and refused to allow them to film until Professor Schneider left the room.
McAleer said he was disappointed by Professor Schneider’s behaviour.

“It was a press conference. Climategate is a major story – it goes to the heart of the Global Warming debate by calling into question the scientific data and the integrity of many scientists involved.”

“These questions should be answered. The attempts by UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistant to remove my microphone were hamfisted but events took a more sinister turn when they called an armed UN security officer to silence a journalist.”

TF followed this line with a fairly heated line on suppression of the freedom of the press, and leading to the failure of the media to give the fullest publicity that he felt the incident deserves.

(Right so far TF?)

Now there are two parts here as far as I am concerned.

_______________________________________________________

The first is the nature of a press conference; its purpose and the rights of those involved. If one takes the time to watch the process rather than the just letting it flow over there are three things you will note;

1. The process has a purpose, an objective. It is to pass a message to the media. In this instance the professor was publicising the release of his latest book.

2. There are standards of courtesy that are usually observed. Those courtesies generally tend to favour the person presenting the conference. It is little different whether the person is presenting a scientific paper, a political statement or a religious sermon.

3. One of those courtesies relates to the asking of questions, the presentation of responses to those questions, and allowing a range of questions to be asked.

Think for a moment about the normal (usually weekly) press conference held by a very senior politician; I am thinking here President or Prime Minister. The press conference is a very good mechanism for the presentation of current action, flying future kites, and generally making the politician look good. The other side of the rostrum is looking for that vital piece of news that is going to headline the 6 oclock news on tv, or the front page of the next morning's newspaper.

Now think for a moment what might happen if a journalist or media publisher were to not observe the niceties, the courtesies of the press conference. In the extreme, he/she could be banned from the process leaving them without the direct contact with the "news maker". I can think of one instance here, a famous one in NZ, where a Prime Minister refused to attend his own press conference "as long as that charlatan is in there. Get him out!" The clash began with a series of questions at an ealier press conference and a rather inflamatory editorial piece combined with an excellent lampoon of the PM (the journalist was/still is an excellent cartoonist). I can recall "exclusion" being threatened by GWB against one journalist and his network for similar incourtesies. It is not all that uncommon.
____________________________________________

So I arrive at the second part.

How does this apply to the situation that started TF's rant?

The Professor, whose conference was disrupted, was faced with a person whose intentions were (very obviously to my mind) to disrupt the proceedings, to use it to present his own and very contrary views, to suppress as far as possible the publication and dissemination of the proceedings of the true purpose of the conference.

In my mind the Professor's inital response to this un-house-trained puppy was polite and controlled. The repetitive, long-winded, and loud demands from the floor very quickly passed any acceptable limits. No one else in the room could ask a question simply because they were being shouted down.

Another parallel for you, TF. If I were to walk uninvited into your family Christmas celebrations and began preaching atheism through a megaphone with a mate videoing your and your family's reactions for the news I can imagine your reaction. I would be lucky to leave the room intact, if at all with my life.

The professor, rather than taking that extreme himself relied upon the (very tight) security being provided for all of the participants at the Copenhagen shindig.

To summarise -

If that wally, that rude, persistent, totally unwanted, self-appointed, self promoting idiot, that moron wishes to present his personal views he has the right to freedom of speech. He can without fret nor favour hold his own press conference. He might even be allowed to hold it as part of the Copenhagen conference.

What would be really interesting (if he were to do this) would be the attendance at his press conference. I think that if I were a journalist at Copenhagen I might be tempted to go. But the resulting article would be very similar to Tom Scott's views on Rob Muldoon.

Happy Thanksgiving, America!

A little belated perhaps, but a thoughtful wish to all in America for a happy Thanksgiving. From my contact with the business world over there I know this is the last chance for a reasonable holiday before the privations of winter set in especially for those in the north.

A post by TFS brought this to mind. Being the man that he is, his emphasis is almost entirely on the religious aspects of Thanksgiving as primary. He links to another like-minded person who gives a quotation from Frenchman De Tocqueville.

The religion which declares that all are equal in the sight of God, will not refuse to acknowledge that all citizens are equal in the eye of the law. Religion is the companion of liberty in all its battles and all it conflicts; the cradle of its infancy and the divine source of its claims.

As one might expect, there should be (as I see it at least) one huge lot more than that for America to be thankful for.

It is horrendously out of context, I know, but no more so that the original quote and quite likely the translation as well. Not being a French-speaking scholar of De Tocqueville I am not going to take it any further than that.

First up, as I pointed out to TFS, that passage was written in the mid-1800’s, 1851 if Wiki is to be believed. At that time “citizen’s rights” were defined in a manner that would today rank beside the likes of Iran, 1950’s South Africa, and China.

To be clear, I am including under the heading of “citizen’s rights” such forgotten things as –

The right to vote.
The right to own property.
The right to unrestricted travel.

Those rights were not universal in the US in the 1850’s. I have to concede that the right to vote was not universal in NZ until 1869.

That being the case, the thought led me to think what would I be thankful for if a similar religious festival were in place in NZ.

First I think would have to be for the blessing (look it up in the Oxford TF, I am not going religious yet. It means “something to be thankful for…”) of having been born in this country, for its freedom, its bounty and beauty.

Immediately after that would come the people who have fought to make it, and keep it, that way. The likes of Hobson, Williams, Hone Hika, Te Whiti, as the foundation stones, followed by Kate Shepheard, Apirana Ngata, and even Richard Seddon and Michael Joseph Savage would be worth a passing thought. The servicemen and women of the six wars fought overseas – Boer, WW1, WW2, Korea, Malaya, Vietnam.

It is there that the difference would lie. I doubt that many of those listed would consider themselves “divinely inspired” apart from Williams who was a Minister and Missionary. For the rest, I suspect that much of what they achieved would fall into the “95% perspiration” category.

So it is likely that if I were in America now, I would be thanking a whole bunch of people for their work and sacrifice in building what America is today and striving to keep and better all that is good in that nation.

On being responsible for the development of a new superhuman

Hat tip to Al (old whig) for this one.

Your child is a DoublePlusHuman. Don't make him or her into any less than that. Instead, strive to grow with him or her.

I say this as someone who was a child once and who has gone through the whole process of being programmed and then deprogrammed. I was for a while a mere drone, subject to the whims of social norms. I felt rebellion so many times in my childhood and felt terribly guilty for it. Now I understand I was right. When my parents told me they love me I felt smothered because anything I do imperfectly was not enough to make up for her love. When my parents told me life was suffering I did not want to believe. Today I know I was right, about nearly everything. If there was someone to show me what I know today, many of my current compulsions which limit my present personal freedom would not exist.

Children are not blank canvases that you can paint whatever you wish on. They already are masterpieces. You just have to let them flourish.

I have two objections to this.

The first is that every child is different. While not trying to contradict the general thrust of the line of thought, the idea has to be put into the context of individual ability.

The second is that (from my experience) an enormous part of child-raising these days is predicated on the (often quite unreasonable) expectations of the parents. I must say that this is very much a two-edged sword; that sometimes the parental expectations can undershoot their child’s actual ability by a very long way.

I left Al with the thought that “There is always that very tentative balance between guiding and restricting development of a child, and providing the social skills and morals needed to cope with living in society.”

Rather than the “programmed and de-programmed” description from the author I would describe it as more of a process of “learning and refinement”. I would like to think that I was a fairly “moral” child though there could be some debate about that if I were totally honest.

I have to confess to having very little ability in social interaction, especially in my youth. I was at one level shy, backward, and felt very awkward dealing with other people. Social contact with girls was totally foreign to me, to the extent that at the age of 13 at a school social the old man had to quite literally drag me out of a film (being shown for the parents) and into the room down the hall where there was a dance. Dance? How?? With GIRLS? By the end of the evening I had sort of cottoned on to Military Two-step and Quadrille. Trying a foxtrot had me quite literally in a sweat. And as for the last waltz!! Say no more.

Five years later I wasn’t much better. I was living in Auckland, away from the family, having to cope on my own.

Five years after that, I had managed to talk a very nice young lady into marrying me so I must have learned some social skills by that time.

Another five years and I am responsible for the education and raising of my own first-born. How the h3!! do I do that??

Yes, children are very much "blank canvasses". I see my responsibility as a parent to put the frame around that canvas. To limit the development of the picture to the kind of norms I consider to be appropriate for society but at the same time to not influence the shape and form of the picture.

The massacre at Fort Hood -

Just cleaning things up at the end of the week, and with the news of Fort Hood breaking on the radio...

I am sitting here listening to Portishead "Third", and as I write the track "Machinegun" is playing, and the neighbours are setting fire to money again in the form of fireworks to celebrate the unsuccessful attempt by Catholic terrorists to blow up the Protestant-run English Parliament.

Machinegun

I saw a saviour
a saviour come my way
I thought I'd see it
at the cold light of day
but now I realise that I'm
Only for me

if only I could see
You turn myself to me
and recognise the poison in my heart
there is no other place
no one else I face
remedy, we'll agree, is how I feel
here in my reflecting
What more can I say?
for I am guilty
for the voice that I obey
too scared to sacrifice a choice
chosen for me

if only I could see
You turn myself to me
recognise the poison in my heart
there is no other place
no one else I face
The remedy, to agree, is how I feel

(Subject to all of the strictures of copyright etc which is why I have included the link to the source in the heading)

Those lyrics I find strangely appropriate to the sad events at Fort Hood. This was not a political or terrorist act any more than Columbine, or the Pennsylvania shootings were the work of terrorists.

It is a criminal act, carried out by a man who has to fall into at least two of the "mad, sad, bad" categories. That in no way lessens the nature of the shootings. It in no way lessens the impact on families and their community.

So that is why I put the lyrics in.

I can hear the screams of rage against all Muslims. I can imagine the more extreme wanting to lynch all of the Muslims and anyone else who dresses funny just to be sure.

I saw a saviour
a saviour come my way
I thought I'd see it
at the cold light of day
but now I realise that I'm
Only for me

If you can find a P2P copy of "Machinegun" have a listen. I enjoy Portishead's music because it makes me think

On MY god-given rights -

I am sitting here listening to Fat Freddie's Drop that SWMBO has playing on the stereo, there is a tui outside with what seems at first to be a one note welcome "toot-toot" to the world. Shut off the ambient city-noise and a huge repertoir of clicks, gurgles, whistles and honks becomes apparent.

OK, so let's assume for the moment that I live in an "enlightened" country where RKBA applies. Let's assume for the time being that government imposed restrictions on road traffic do not exist.

First, forget about the killer for the moment in the three frames that follow. I want to discuss the "rights" of the victim. I want to discuss the reaction of the lady standing on the footpath. It could be a scene from any American corner store. It could be anywhere from Alaska to Florida. It could be right out of Tom Waits' "Small Change" (...got rained on with his own 38).

The question has to be - "What protection would he have gained from RKBA?" The answer to that question is not improved in any way by gun controls, let's be honest about that. It does point up what I see as the total futility of RKBA as it is presented by the NRA and supporters - you know the kind of thing; "big hairy man jumps out of the shadows and makes to rape your wife... "
>


In a similar vein, there is a continual pressure for "Them" (the Government) to lighten up on the strictures on road users. The speed limit is the usual one; the "government revenue-rasing law". At this time the vexed question of alchohol levels are in the sights as well with proposals to impose a "zero tolerance level" for under-25's and the same "05" law as applies in Australia and many other countries. The resistance comes from groups who consider that they have a god-given right to determine the speed at which they drive. They have a god-given right to decide when they are p'd out of their tree. So, take a look at the following. The consequences; two dead, several injured, one critically. The two fatalities came from the van; thrown out by the impact. The driver of the van was a 16 y-o girl who was "pissed as a fart". But look on the left side of the photo. There is another vehicle there also badly damaged. It is the occupants of that vehicle, their rights to use the roads safely, that I am pointing up.
So there are two small reasons why, when the likes of TF start prating on about "their God-given right" to do this, that or the other, I start getting hot under the collar.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to suggest that if the paramouncy of the rights of the individual to act as he/she sees fit without regard to the rights of others is to apply then it is appropriate too that they be isolated into their own little society. There they can kill, murder, have state-imposed murder, stop abortions, stop pornography, lie, steal, and cheat, to their collective hearts' content.

If humble and somewhat "socialist" countries are able to exist without those so-called "freedoms" then those who promote the rights of the individual over all others can stay away.

It is probably significant that NZ, the Scandinavian countries, in total 82 countries, all rank higher in "freedom indices" than does the US of A.

I wonder why?

Oh, and the three photos of the shooting are actually from Italy. Not that that fact in any way would change what I have said.

On "there being enough to go around..."

This exchange with Fraser Stern follows my exposition on the idea of a probligo utopia (resulting in confirmation of my strong feeling that any utopia is an impossibility because there will always be some idiot turn up to spoil the party)...

TF
...I would like to add a comment to your line, "To reach my dream, I need to face that my standard of living will be lower; that others will benefit in far greater measure than I. Of even greater measure, I have to persuade the richest 20% of the world's population to join me in giving up what they have."

I’d have to disagree on this point. Your belief system is based on the premise that there is only so much to go around, by extension, there can be no increase; but such limits are burst by innovation and productivity incentives which would make the natural resources more useful and go farther. The false warning which I continue to hear is that the earth is too populated, that its natural resources cannot sustain the quality of life which we would all desire or prefer; that simply isn’t true. I refuse to buy into the idea that in order for me to improve my life’s quality that somebody else must reduce their quality of life.


The probligo said...

So the availability of such resources as arable land, potable water, and quality air are infinite TF?

Not in my book.

You often speak of "God-given rights". Is the right for a person living in Somalia to have sufficient food to sustain life "God-given"? If so, why are so many people living there on the verge of starvation? Do you have a "God-given right" to consume (and don't worry, I am no different) far more food than you actually need?


T. F. Stern said...

Probligo, I didn't say these resources were infinite, only that there was sufficient to go around. I continue to believe that there is enough so that my increase does not mean someone else must decrease.

The idea of God given rights is not the same as consumption of natural resources being spread evenly, I would have thought you understood that concept after the many times we've gone head to head.

Now I started this with the intention of a rather ascerbic scrute at the idea of "god-given rights" but, as TF points out we have traversed that ground before without any consensus ad idem.

No, it is the thought that "there is sufficient to go around" that draws the eye this time. It is a thought that has exercised economists, sociologists and others far more learned than I. It still bugs me though, on a number of levels.

First is the idea of "sufficient". At one level, there is "sufficient" as measured by the fact that both TF and I, along with about 20% of the global population, can "exist" on high carb, high fat, high protein diets compared with the subsistence-and-less diets of perhaps the lower 50%. There is "sufficient" in that we both are able to expend significantly excessive amounts of energy in our daily living, compared with the energy sources available to many who have just sufficient to cook a daily meal. There is "sufficient" in that we are able to live in permanent housing having significant economic value compared with the very large numbers who have no prospect of owning land (a concept that might even be foreign to their culture) let alone erecting permanent structures on it. There is sufficient water that we both can use what might be equivalent to a days supply from the community well for all of the family just to wash the family car.

The counter argument of "effort", "earning", "saving", and "value" mean little to people whose lives are essentially subsistence. For many at this level the idea of "subsistence" can be seen as a reasonably comfortable standard of living if you leave out essentials such as education, functioning health services, effective law enforcement, or the trappings of what TF and I might see as "civilisation". I have in mind those such as Samoans, ni-Vanuatu, and Tongans who because of the climate in which they live have better than adequate food supplies, adequate shelter, and not much more. There is a second generalisation that can be applied here; self-sufficiency. Does that mean that these people are happy to live as they do? No!, for the simple reason that they have the same desires for better and more that we all have. No tv? It becomes a desire, then a want, then a need. Minimal education? The same.

The second is the "what" that "has to go around". I would list as examples land and specifically arable land, water and specifically potable water, and mineral resources.

To that extent TF is quite right when he says -

" Your belief system is based on the premise that there is only so much to go around, by extension, there can be no increase; but such limits are burst by innovation and productivity incentives which would make the natural resources more useful and go farther."

This particular line of logic is based upon the same line of thought that gives rise to this -



TF's statement that "...such limits are burst by innovation..." is also "true". However, there are also an increasing number of instances and some within the past year or two which illustrate the first cracks in that argument.

First to come to mind is the "alternative fuels" debate. The conversion and diversion of food-producing land and crops to "fuel-producing" has impacted on (just one instance) global food prices. Suddenly, it was "better business" to produce crops for alternative fuels than it was for food. Prices for cattle-feed grain went through the roof leading to higher beef prices. Why is that? It is the simple, direct application of Economics 102.

On the same line, does it matter if Indonesia or Brazil burns and clears "unproductive" land of the overlying jungle and wild animals? Better to have "productive" land than not, surely? Well truth is that we know as much about the possible impacts of rain forest clearance as we do about the causes of global warming. In other words, not a lot.

Only one example? No.

Go look for a description of the "Sinai Aquifer". This is one of the largest freshwater reservoirs on the globe. It stretches from the north Sinai Peninsula to Cairo and further south. [About 20 years back there was major concern that the water being taken for Cairo was becoming brackish (increasing salt levels). Investigation indicated that the level of the water in the aquifer had dropped to the point where it had gone from "positive pressure" at its outlets under the Mediterranean (giving rise to outflow in the Med) to "negative pressure". The result? Not only was Mediterranean salt water "leaking back into the aquifer, but the salinity of the Mediterranean itself was increasing to the point where fish stocks were potentially under threat.]

Want another example?

Pelargic tuna stocks in the Pacific forty years back were at a level estimated to be equivalent to roughly ten years fishing, "just under sustainable levels" at the rate of fishing in the 1970's. The most recent census (taken by MAF NZ and several Pacific nations) is indicating that the predominant species of bluefin and yellowfin tuna are endangered, and possibly close to extinction. Remember that with the next can of tuna you add to a sandwich or salad.

Want another example, closer to home?

Check out the Newfoundland cod fisheries. That was about 40 years back. It is recovering, slowly, but Britain and Europe will not see cod and chips on the menu for some while for sure.

Or how is about the Lower Colorado irrigation area where the demands on land and water supply are so great that the farms are getting "saltified" as the water evaporates and the river itself is struggling to make the sea.

OK, so "technology" will solve all of these problems? Innovation and production incentives will increase the numbers of bluefin tuna? How much would it cost to provide Cairo with desalinators and then to run them so that that city had "sufficient" (not the amount we use) fresh water.

TF, I suspect that I can explain the difference between your statement that "...my increase does not mean someone else must decrease..." and "... there is only so much to go around, by extension, there can be no increase...".

That difference comes from what best fits with "a different point of view". My up-bringing, my culture, the nature of my community is such that we have very narrow physical boundaries. Nowhere is more than 50 mile from the sea. Beyond that is more than 1000 miles of water to the next major habitations. Those boundaries have, for better or worse, made NZers generally far more conscious of the "outside world".

I had a word in mind when I proposed my challenge. I was reticent to use it at that time as it could be mis-taken as insult rather than descriptive.

"insular a ... 2. of or like islanders, esp. ignorant of or indifferent to other countries and their culture, narrow minded. [Concise Oxford Dictionary]

It started as a suspicion, but these more recent comments confirm, that for so many Americans (observation again, TF, and generalisation) the problems of "the outside world" just do not exist. Well, not at least until they impinge themselves directly upon the US. Hence, until such time as the lack of a resource does impinge upon "my" ability to obtain it, there is no shortage; there is plenty for all; any deficiencies must be the fault of those who can not afford to buy what they need. Of course, at the time that the last tuna is taken it will be the fault of the UN, of "big government", of faceless bureaucrats et al that more was not done to ensure that there would be tuna for dinner next year...

UPDATE -

Sometimes I should read my own advice. I based my commentary on the Sinai Aquifer on memory of a series of articles in SciAm, Nature, and the news of the time. As is so often the case my memory is faulty. Sorry to those who went chasing geese as a result of my error.

On the idea of utopia...

I presented TF with a challenge that he has responded to both promptly and with some considerable thought. I do not propose to present my alternative as a criticism of what he has written. What must be appreciated is that we do, obviously, come from very different backgrounds; similar cultures with a partially shared history; but like the finches in the Galapagos we are the products of habitats which have evolved in very different ways to fit very different “ecological niches”.

So perhaps I can start by echoing his entrance; it is the universal desire of every parent that their family should live in happiness and security. That echo draws the very first contrast. Not only do I wish that for my family and for TF’s, I wish it too for every family on this earth irrespective of breed, and belief. Therein lies the first major challenge as well, for it is true that not every person is born equal on this planet. Not at present that is. Bear witness here that I am taking “equality” here in its broadest and most general sense; I have just eaten lunch. I have just eaten food valued by our system at NZD0.75, USD0.55. In many places on this earth that value would comprise a week’s food for one person, not because their food is cheaper you understand but because that is as much as they are able to buy. At that point I meet the first of the “impossibilities”; I can not increase the “happiness index” (for want of a better term) of those people without decreasing that of others. The ability of this planet to support the increasing demands of our societies is limited. That limitation is distorted to a great degree by the fact that a small fraction (of which I am a member as much as is TF) of our global population are able to obtain, control and consume the greatest part of those resources.

The second truth that TF included with that first was his right “to make a living without governmental bureaucrats mucking up the works or worrying about world affairs and political upheaval.” Again, I must – can only – agree. So too does every other person on this earth have that right. There is a subsidiary thread that starts at this point and which I will return to pick up toward the end. For the moment, there is any number of books that can and have been written on the topic. Which brand of solution you want to select will depend from the type of political outlook you have. It has to be accepted that “government bureaucrats” is one of those simplistic generic terms that are floated by people who really mean to include all who are involved in the process of government from elected representatives to the desk clerk and receptionist and refuse collector. Again that sentiment has to be included as a universal. My response to the line of argument which usually follows is that every society ends up with the government it deserves. The challenge here is to accept that fact and also to have the tolerance to accept those differences. That challenge is also as universal as the sentiment.

I am also in agreement with TF’s quotation from The Federalist. Again, I can not escape “the shades of difference” between us. Where TF sees Federalist as “…if everyone acted to the best of their ability…” I can not dispute that. I must however lay alongside that the thought “…all must be allowed to act to the best of their ability…”. In that subtle distinction lies all manner of challenges for those of us who live in advanced and rich communities. Again, I come to the subsidiary thread I referred to in the earlier para. Now is not yet the time to pick up that thread. Note too that I do not make “money” the problem here any more than does TF.

At this point in his piece TF and I really do part company. I have said many times that I respect his beliefs. That I do in the same way as I respect the beliefs of the Sikh lady in the desk behind me, the Presbyterian boss, the Catholic lady my wife plays tennis with or the Buddhist Chinese family over the road from us. Therein lies a very major difference in point of view, of world view, in the nature of our respective utopias.

Whatever a utopia might be, however a utopia might “work”, its very first fundamental must be of tolerance and acceptance of difference. To do otherwise must create the tensions and the distinctions that TF has striven to avoid. It is not just differences of religion. It is as basic as differences in personality, in ambition, and in capability. All of these barriers to utopia have been well discussed at many levels; from learned papers in universities to science fiction novels.

What those differences do however is to stir the contentious pot of supremacy. TF avoids this potential through the simple mechanisms of exclusion and close focus. His utopia depends (including "hangs from") on the thread of "one-ness" of culture and religion. There are no alternatives. Again we find that thread.

It is easy to argue that my utopia has the defect of the opposite; that variety and inclusion introduces the seeds of destruction. I have to agree. There would need to be agreed means of imposing rules; ensuring common justice; guaranteeing equitable and universal rights. Conflicts between cultures and ideas have always been at the heart of the development of our species. But the greatest barrier to my utopia is that of conversion and change. To reach my dream, I need to face that my standard of living will be lower; that others will benefit in far greater measure than I. Of even greater measure, I have to persuade the richest 20% of the world's population to join me in giving up what they have.

The differences between TF and I might be expressed as –

TF sees his utopia as existing only through the culture and society in which he lives. He excludes difference. I don’t imagine for a moment that it was intentional. I believe though that (in my family at least) the spoken word that reveals underlying and hidden truth is often referred to as a “Freudian slip”. For someone like TF to speak his present reality as the foundation of his utopia is no grounds for criticism. It must be accepted as his expression of his truth.

My reference at the beginning to “evolution” was intentional. It is one of the very many differences that TF and I have. He has certainly not tried to persuade me that his paradigm is “correct”, and I have respected that by not challenging his viewpoint when expressed (perhaps other than an occasional mild poke in the ribs).

The point I have reached is this. My comment, the one picked up by TF, was born from the feeling that the existence of any person’s utopia is very dependent upon the evolution of that person’s society, even their family. The other extreme from TF might be the utopia of a member of Taliban, or Ibo, or Inuit. The fundamentals might even be similar; peace, wealth, rights. It is the means of expressing, attaining and measuring those goals that will differ far more fundamentally.

This is where I must end before I write a book. It is also where I must pick up that secondary thread I have had trailing through this whole piece. It is not a right or wrong distinction; it is a fundamental difference in our personalities, our up-bringing, our societies, our environment.

For better or worse, I have been blessed by living in a society that is based on difference and acceptance of those differences. I have been blessed by the fact that I have grown to accept differences, perhaps to an even greater degree than my own brother. I do not believe I could live in TF’s utopia. It sounds to me as though it would be too homogeneous, too narrow, for the ol’ probligo to fit. I do not believe for a moment that TF will accept my version for similar reasons; too liberal by half, and it excludes God, specifically his God.

I am not able to codify or to even develop the fundamentals of my personal utopia beyond what I have written here. I have developed these ideas over many years without ever having thought to formally express them prior to this conversation.

I have not cried the support of learned people and religion. This is all my own work.

I stand by it.

On entitlement mentality...

I started writing last Saturday in response to a recent post by TF, in which he used (in the usual derogatory context) the tag-term “entitlement mentality”. I got myself horrendously bogged down with the balance between my line of thought and the kind of connotations the term has and to which I was objecting.



Then, last night was one of those few tv programmes that I really enjoy. A child psychologist, Nigel Latta, is in the middle of a series of programmes on the subject of “child-rearing” or parenting.



OK, ok I can hearing the scoffing already. No, the probligo has not lost his tree. It is a very interesting take on children, parenting and how best to achieve kids with the right attitudes. It is also, at the very least in terms of the debate at hand very a propos.



A brief wander through the chatboards and “reviews” that google brings to the surface in response to “latta parenting” will show everything from the “liberal” pain and outrage (at topics like poo in the bath or breastpumps) to the outright and unreserved approval of mums of real kids.



The tv series is based on a “stage” presentation that Latta started back in 2007 and it has been doing the rounds since then.



The clue to all of this has to be in the name – “The Politically Incorrect Parenting Show”.



This taken from a Listener interview back in 2007 –

It’s time to poke a stick at our child-centred world, says Dunedin-based clinical psychologist, author and father of two boys Nigel Latta. And he does so, unashamedly, in a performance he calls the Politically Incorrect Parenting Show.

What is politically incorrect parenting? It came about because I think we’ve got incredibly precious about children and we stress and worry more than any other generation of parents. We worry about them walking to school, climbing trees, if we read them enough bedtime stories, if we read out all the plaques at the museum … none of it makes a difference.

Isn’t that just the natural order of things for a parent – to worry? If you’re constantly stressed and worried about whether you are doing a good job, you’re not going to do a good job. You’re far better off enjoying your kids, and then when you stop enjoying them, tell them to go away and play. Like our parents did. Our parents raised us on some pretty straightforward guidelines: we’re adults; you’re children. We play with adults; you play with children. Self-esteem hadn’t been invented when we were children. Our parents could just get on with being parents.

Are parents these days too busy trying to be their kid’s best pal? It’s okay to not be their little mate and it’s okay if they hate you. We got a letter last night posted under our door from our seven-year-old, saying how much he hated us.

How creative of him. Did you give him a prize? Why did he hate you? He was sent to bed early for being rude. He’s still learning that sometimes in life it’s best to zip one’s mouth rather than keep arguing for a position that’s already lost.

Are you New Zealand’s answer to Supernanny? If anyone described me as Supernanny, I’d shoot myself in the head. She’s possibly the most annoying woman in the world. I really like the British series Little Angels because it shows parents fixing things.

On one hand you say there’s this enormous anxiety about positive parenting and that we are very child-centred. But on the other, New Zealand has one of the worst records for child abuse in the OECD. The people who get anxious about positive parenting generally are concerned, and the people who beat their kids don’t engage in things like the debate around Section 59 and they often come from generations of crap parenting. They actually don’t care about hurting their children. So, this idea that we can appeal to them is ridiculous.

Not even through television ad campaigns – “Violence is not okay”? It’s just absolute bollocks. It’s lunacy. There are lots of things we could do in this country to reduce the number of kids who die or are hurt, but the problem is that the country is run by politicians and people who are good at advocating to politicians. The good clinicians, the people who can solve the problem, are crap at working the system and they never have very much money.

People say parenting’s the hardest job in the world, even for those least marginalised. Absolutely. I’ve been incredibly lucky, I had fantastic parents and grew up in a stable home and yet there are still times when I feel like chucking my boys out the window. I’d walk into the fire for them, but some days my fingers itch for the want to throw them out the nearest window.

Have you ever hit your kids? Hit, smack – absolutely. In fact, I’m the only person in New Zealand who started smacking because of Sue Bradford.

But aren’t the big people supposed to be in control and not hit or bellow? It’s not the fact that you bellow at your kids, it’s your lifetime average. Everybody bellows when they lose the plot and the reason you yell is that it makes you feel better. But as a long-term strategy, it’s not the best. I think that a lot of people, if they give their kid a smack on the bum, or yell, think, “Oh, I’m a terrible person.” Well, not necessarily.

If you give a shit about your kids and you love them, they know that.

Yes, his language is as direct as that :).



It goes further. He promotes concepts which, while I did not appreciate their importance as a child, I certainly agree with now. Concepts such as “risk”, “consequence”, “self reliance”, independence”, “respect”, “authority” and “effort” come to the fore.



But, how does this tie with TF’s “entitlement mentality”? Well that comes out of the programme last night. Latta was running through the idea of “self”, “self-image” and such-like concepts from the modern school of parenting.

He made the point using birthday parties as a f’rinstance. “When we were kids…”; the person having the birthday got the presents, got the first piece of cake. These days, everyone else gets the presents, everyone has their own personal cake that they can have the first piece of… Parents compete for “the bestest birthday party in the neighbourhood”, aided in their endeavours by advertising usually aimed at the kids if not actively promoted by them. You know the kind of thing, “But muumm, Daisy down the road had…”. The current one on tv promotes the “popularity steaks” with everyone wanting to be your friend because your parents are taking you and all of those “friends” to the local burger house (think here of arches).



The point Latta made was that Generation Y is being – has been – raised with that entitlement mentality to the fore. “I am GOOD. I WANT. I GET!” is the mantra for the selfish moderns. I work with a young fella who has this attitude in spades, and who has a passion for technology. In the past year he has owned, tried, displayed with pride, probably three different and increasingly expensive cellphones; sorry – what would be the generic term for a “Blackberry” or “iPod”? There is total pride in his purchase. There is pride in how much it cost!! On the other hand I have a basic cellphone, solely for communication, and only because SWMBO gave it me as a birthday present five years ago. It cost perhaps $100. It has no camera. It has no internet connection. It is a telephone. I have to use it every six months or so or the service provider will cancel the connection and I will lose the prepaid value on the phone.



The entitlement mentality is reinforced by the advertising industry. “THIS is what you want!! GO GET IT!!” It gets worse. You don’t even need the money. “Hey! Something you want? HERE is the money!” Don’t worry about paying it back. That is not the point. The point is “You want; you get!”



So, when people like TF start to complain (I resist the temptation to use “right whinge”) about “entitlement mentality” I start to get hot. I know what they mean, and I understand all of the connotations that their political beliefs impose on the term.



However, so many people completely miss the truth. What he is complaining of is not something that is restricted to the poor, or to those on welfare, alone. It is endemic in our society. It is the basis, the fundamental, the foundation of the consumer economy. It is a state of mind that requires a person have not this or that, but this and that. It totally pervades our society. It is the attitude that makes us see four wheels with motive power and safety equipment not as a simple mode of transport but as a symbol of our personality. How many people go out and buy a “replacement” for a perfectly good, still serviceable appliance simply because there is a new one advertised on the tv which has a different colour, a new motor, or which is merely more in keeping with the current fashion?



Returning to the thoughts TF proposes on entitlement mentality, there is a question that has to be asked.



How many of those who by the implications he puts on the term, those on welfare, the dodgers, the bludgers, the lazy and the unproductive are in fact responsible for the credit squeeze and the bad loans and all of the other ills of the financial and banking systems? I would suggest very few indeed.



The far greatest part of the bad debt is probably owed by teenage children who are entitled to credit cards paid by their forty-something parents; by twenty-somethings who are entitled to add a new car, an expensive home theatre system and their OE to their student loan; by thirty somethings who marry and are entitled to spend far more than necessary on their wedding because they must make the social statement “I am rich!”; by forty-somethings who are entitled to the expensive house, the two cars, the RV, the sports car, and the boat…



Not just the people who fall into the right wing paradigm…

A Material(istic) difference...

This little tale comes from a friend of my wife; a lady whose opinions and outlook I respect as much as I do her husband’s.

The conversation was about parties, barbeques of the summer variety, and some of the people that you meet.

This lady invited some friends over for a barbeque (the story is second hand from my wife); friends whom the hosts knew had guests in from San Francisco. The husband of the lady telling the story was a keen angler and had had a good catch the day prior and was happy to share some of our freshest and finest seafood.

After the meal had been downed, accompanied by some very good wine I do not doubt, the hostess was in the kitchen clearing up and was stacking the plastic plates used for the barbeque in the dishwasher.

The female half of the San Franciscan couple came in to assist and was quite astonished that the plastic “throw-aways” would be re-used. “Oh! We haven’t washed dishes in years! Everything is delivered in disposables, and we use disposables at the table!”

Swine flu...

I’m sorry, but when I come across any headline in ol’ Granny Herald (page 3) like the one announcing that a scientist in the US has “discovered” that the Swine Flu bug originated in NZ it just makes me cringe more than somewhat.



A quick probligo review…



Scientist makes announcement that SF originated in NZ.

What is the basis for this “discovery”? Something to do with the fact that the virus carried by a group of Auckland students (of whom 3 were actually infected and a further 4 “developed symptoms”) had close DNA links to the outbreak in Mexico. Now, the student party had been in Mexico for a couple of weeks practising their Spanish in amongst with the locals; right?

And, I just guess that it is totally logical that one of their number (remember 3 came back with SF-like symptoms after 2 weeks in Mexico) had caught a stray virus from the biological warfare division of ESR in Wellington; right? Before the group left for Mexico; right? So we can safely assume that that one student has infected some one hundred or so people in a wide area of Mexico; right? And even more in the US as a result!!



Not just that, but in the intervening month or so, there have been another 9 or 10 potential cases of SF in NZ. That means that NZ must be a real hot-bed of infection arising from the biological warfare division of ESR. Not only that, but NZ has been actively toting the disease into Australia!! So effective has that campaign been that there are well over 1,000 confirmed cases of SF in Australia, a cruise liner tied up for several days with a quarantine flag flying (that at least was fact), and the locals have started beating up on Indian students (perhaps mistakenly thinking that they are Maori).



In the meantime, the scientist who started this whole miasma has suddenly recanted; raising the obvious questions – why did he say it in the first place, and why has he recanted?

An American scientist says he was misquoted as saying the swine flu virus originated in "either New Zealand or China".

The director of Louisiana State University's division of biotechnology and molecular medicine, Gus Kousoulas, had been quoted as saying: "We think it [swine flu] began in New Zealand or China."

But he subsequently told the New Zealand Science Media Centre: "The statement was based on early phylogenetic analysis of available sequences. It was misquoted.

"There is no basis currently to support a New Zealand origin. While we still do not know the true origin, a US or Mexico origin is more likely," he added.

Equally obvious as the questions is the answer – he has been paid his 30 pieces of silver by ESR and their friends. This germ warfare experiment in Wellington is so highly secret, and so dangerous, that even the Americans are sworn to highest secrecy from Obama on down.



Well, I had to get him into the picture somewhere given the extreme US rights panic and dismay that the guy might be in the process of turning the US into a success; sorry, successful communist state. I am not going to debate that one here simply because it ranks as much as the idea that ESR are responsible for SF.



Mind you, if the ESR is looking for experimental subjects there are a number of people around here who would sing their praises – starting with the Jonkey – if they were to approach Dr Richard Worth and offer him his 30 pieces for a good ol’ dose of the SF.



A good start to the foil hat season, I have to say.

Idle thoughts for a winter's day...

This starts with one of Liberty Bob’s articles about the Swine Flu. Not the PC of H1N1 around these parts. Officials and the probligo have decreed that the name is Swine flu; in just the same way as the Geographic Board has decreed that “North Island” and “South Island” are just not good enough, nor do they reflect the “traditional" Maori names, but most importantly of all they have never been Gazetted.

Be that as it may, and back to Liberty Bob. He had a (non-probligo) comment bewailing the millions who had died in the avian flu epidemic. The probligo, intentionally and because he was in a bit of a mood, took it seriously and was quite rightly mildly castigated by L-B for not recognizing the sarcasm of the first comment.

Be that as it may as well, and moving on from Liberty Bob to the wider world… Well, America in fact.

Why is it that Americans (and it seems to be a fairly general trait and not something that is in just the small circles of Americans that I have met) have this propensity for mindless bravado, for totally disregarding risk, for being the villagers who ignored the little boy who cried wolf once too often? I have to admit that it is a trait that has given impetus to their country’s place in the world. Without that bravado, a lot of very valuable things would never have happened, and the world would be the poorer (and in some cases, the better) for it.

Just a second, the cat is trying to crawl into my lap…

Now, WWI? Oh, yeah, the bravado.

To take examples other than Bob writing on the Swine Flu we could look at the overall reaction to the warnings of Katrina as a Cat 5 storm; or the warnings back in 2005 and 2006 that national and international financial systems were getting “overheated”; the scepticism that “global warming” is something we should worry about. “We’ve heard them before and nothing happened!” “Cry wolf again…”

Perhaps there is a converse here. If we look at the national reaction to 9/11; a mixture of justified outrage at one end and a paranoic fear at the other. When America “worries” it is an all-consuming fear. The current “fear”, now that Osama has not been found in Afghanistan, is that Obama will ruin America. Will he? I believe no more than it has already been “ruined” by successive administrations each following their individual political mantras into oblivion. And there is still that chance that he might do good…

So, it looks like Americans at least consider the Swine Flu – sorry H1N1 Mexico – to be little more than a beat-up by the left wing media. Once again. Tail wags the dog – again.

Futures...

Y’know, it is strange sometimes how things work out. I went away for an extended weekend – I have eight days leave due to me and another 20 at the ened of the month – so SWMBO and I invited some very good friends to come and share a few days along with some good wine, good food and good conversation at the beachside in Opononi. Now the forecast was not promising, with 25 plus knots of nor-easter and rainy bits as well. But we managed, and our friends left well-satisifed as did we. But that is not what I want to talk about.

In one of the papers between Friday and Sunday was a small article that gave a somewhat different paradigm to the “current financial meltdown”. I made a mental note to look it up on the net when we got back to the big smoke. Could I find it? Not even au!!

But I did turn up two other articles, both ex Granny Herald, that have a quite curious connection apart from their appearance in consecutive editions.

The first of the two is by-lined Pamela Hess, a lady I do not recall having read previously. She has flicked out a report from the National Intelligence Council titled "Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World”

Some of our preliminary assessments are highlighted below:
 The whole international system—as constructed following WWII—will be revolutionized. Not only will new players—Brazil, Russia, India and China— have a seat at the international high table, they will bring new stakes and rules of the game.
 The unprecedented transfer of wealth roughly from West to East now under way will continue for the foreseeable future.
 Unprecedented economic growth, coupled with 1.5 billion more people, will put pressure on resources—particularly energy, food, and water—raising the specter of scarcities emerging as demand outstrips supply.
 The potential for conflict will increase owing partly to political turbulence in parts of the greater Middle East.

Hess tempts with others –

It also says the warming earth will extend Russia and Canada's growing season and ease their access to northern oil fields, which will strengthen their economies. But Russia's potential emergence as a world power may be clouded by lagging investment in its energy sector, persistent crime and government corruption, the report says.

Analysts also warn that the same kind of organized crime plaguing Russia could eventually take over the government of an Eastern or Central European country. The report is silent on which one.

It also says countries in Africa and South Asia may find themselves unstable and ungoverned, as state regimes collapse or wither away under security problems and water and food shortages brought about by climate change and a population increase of 1.4 billion.

The potential for conflict will be greater in 2025 than it is now, as the world's population competes for declining and shifting food, water and energy resources.

Despite a more precarious world situation, the report also says al-Qaida's terrorist franchise could decay "sooner than people think". It cites its growing unpopularity in the Muslim world, where it kills most of its victims.

"The prospect that al-Qaida will be among the small number of groups able to transcend the generational timeline is not high, given its harsh ideology, unachievable strategic objectives and inability to become a mass movement," the report states.

The report forecasts a geopolitical rise in non-Arab Muslim states outside of the Middle East, including Turkey and Indonesia, and says Iran could also be a central player in a new world order if it sheds its theocracy.

... suggests the world may complete its move away from its dependence on oil, ...

...that the US dollar, while remaining important, will decline to "first among equals" among other national currencies.

US global power will likely decline, as Americans' concerns about putting resources into solving domestic problems may cause the United States to withdraw some resources from foreign and global problems.

The second contrasts quite nicely. It flows like a gentle stream from the keyboard of Gwynne Dyer – a regular if not subscribed “international correspondant”. He kicks off with –

Barack Obama will inherit the in-box from hell when he becomes President. But an all-points crisis like the present one also creates opportunities for radical change that do not exist in normal times.

As Rahm Emanuel, his newly appointed chief of staff, put it: "Never waste a crisis."

Is Obama clever enough and radical enough to seize those opportunities?

From there he runs into promises to close Guantanamo, GWB’s exective veto on measures that put emission controls in place in California, and how about this for a Dyering gem

The recession will feel like a crisis for only a few more months. People eventually get used to almost anything.

Ah, there is a saying, Gwynne, widely used in a beer advertisement round these parts; “Yeah, right!”

It gets worser though.

The century-long pre-eminence of the US as the economic superpower was bound to decline gradually as the Asian giants industrialised, but the financial collapse risks turning that into a steep and irreversible fall. Even the US dollar could lose its place as the global reserve currency.

To limit the damage, Obama has to play a poor hand very well. He has implicit permission from the financial gurus to run even bigger deficits over the next couple of years than the Bush Administration did.

That will let him do some repair work on the American social fabric as well as just bailing out failing businesses and jobless people. But rebuilding America's reputation abroad will take more than money.

This is getting close to populist and simplistic nonsense. Like so many others, Dyer is promoting the messianic level of Obama’s campaign. It loses sight of the truth; that POTUS is an administrator, a bureaucrat. He is not a dictator, benign or otherwise. For a commentator or mere journalist of his stature to forget that fundamental is unforgiveable.

So, I will have to return to what I can remember of the article I failed to find. It would have appealed immensely to Lucy. It was a thoughtful and practicle analysis of the similarities between personal and national finance, the need for thrift and economy not in times of hardship but at all times. It castigated the profligacy and waste of both money and resources by western society. It promoted, indirectly, the stupidity of the continual pressure to spend and consume in pursuit of the good life. It had its sweet little homilies, that TF might also have enjoyed. For instance the story of Mrs Wheelbarrow and the fridge. Mrs Wheelbarrow needs a new refridgerator. Why? The old one is still working. Well, her neighbours have a brand new one with a brushed stainless steel finish and it looks beautiful. So, Mrs Wheelbarrow deserves one as well.

It was well written and a joy to read, if you were prepared to take on board the hard lessons. It might have fitted in well with the NIC report as a means of the west's survival in the long term.

What a shame it was “lost”. I can’t find it. I can not remember the author. It has gone.

Happy 70th birthday!!!

... to Orson Welle's radio version of War of the Worlds.

Yeah, OK I am a day early. I just wanted to get in first!! :P

A fantastic piece of radio theatre which chills my spine every time I hear it. It also is an impeachable illustration of the power of the broadcast media.