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...

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.

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.

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.

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…

If ever it is needed...

here is incontravertible proof that the ol' probligo not only exists (he's the tubbier one with the red shirt), but has rellies as well!!!

Actually that was a very enjoyable (for us, third) Christmas dinner. It is omitted that my stepmother, Jill, was also staying at the farm with Ruth and Stephan. I resisted the temptation to make a hole in the pond, but limited my involvement to pretending to rake out some more of the kikuyu.

I don't see enough of my sister. Shame.

On Father's Day...

Today is Father's Day here in NZ.

I had a very good Father's Day.

My wife gave me a very nice card with the inscription -

Families are like fudge...

mostly sweet with a few nuts.

Number One Son and his family came over for an afternoon tea.

Number Two Grand-daughter was in a very grizzly mood having had a disrupted morning schedule. Took a few funny faces to get her attention and things quietened down considerably.

Number One Grand-daughter got the double wink (both eyes, one at a time). Five minutes later I caught her "practising" from the safety of Dad's lap. When they left I got a full blooded double wink from her :) :) Gorgeous!!

So, I am better off by two cards, a box of scorched almonds (which will probably live in the cupboard for a few months because they do the waistline no good at all) and a phone call from Number One Daughter.

All in all, a good day.

Christmas 2007

Well it wasn't the Christmas but the return this year.

Originally, we were having Christmas v1 on December 21 with son and d-i-l and the grandchildren, then heading north to Opo followed by Daughter and s-i-l for Christmas v2.

But, someone forgot to book the cat into the catel (hotcat? motcat?)and so Christmas v1 was the full family deal and Christmas v2 was just us.

We were back in Auckland on 2/1 and I was back at work the next day for what has been 8 days, close to 100 hours.

So, the ol' blog has been a bit neglected, with only the odd comment dropped into the blogiverse.

I'M BACK!!!

The passing years...

The ol' probligo turns 60 at the end of the month and the family has been putting the acid on to get something presentable together. In an attempt to keep some of the more embarrassing examples well hidden, the probligo agreed to sort a few out.

Of the two, the earlier one is more like me, the second (how gawky can you get) was taken in studio when I was 16 or 17.

Give us this day our daily bread...

Small item that caught my ear (and I have no idea why this was on the radio news) the other night concerns one Dr Raj Patel and the "theories" behind supermarkets.

Rather than just link through to all that he has written, let me put this in my own words...

Patel starts with the idea that "Supermarkets sell those products that are the cheapest and highest margin." Nothing wrong with that the Capitalists would sy, and I agree. "Therefore the range of products on sale is determined by their relative profitability and not by the needs or desires of the customer." Returning to Patel, he contends that we humans are wired to desire foods containing sugar, fat and salt - HFSS's as he terms them.

How does this work?

Take a small family business I worked for some years back. It no longer exists. The boss sold out I believe but he might also have gone to Florida seeking eternal redemption with the Scientologists. Anyhoo we sold "bulk food" to the supermarkets. These are products intended for the customer to weigh out and pack for themselves as much as they require instead of having to buy 500gm, or 6 x 30 gram packs... Top of the company's range by volume - out of some 85 available - was blanched roast salted peanuts. Probably one of the more "unhealthy" of the products we sold. High oil content (we used canola oil), high fat content (from the peanuts as well), and very high salt content. The supermarkets used this as a loss leader (one of them) for about four weeks every three months. There was no debate on our price, we were told - not asked. On one occasion, in one of his more shitty moods, the boss refused to supply at the markets price and got his answer about ten minutes later - "take your fittings out by tomorrow night, we will make arrangements for a new supplier". It took about three months to get that market back into our order books.

But the point behind that little tale is the fact that we were a "health(y) food" company. Because of the nature and business of our customers, one of the highest volume lines was also one of the most unhealthy.

OK, now for a personal observation. It came to my notice during my 14 weeks off work. In all, that resulted in at least ten major shopping trips to the supermarket with the CofE (Chancellor of the Exchequer). Now I am the first to give credit; apart from the odd small item like a bar of chocolate or suchlike the CofE is not given to impulse purchasing. She carries a very detailed list, fully costed, and prices get checked at the time she is selecting what she wants. She really is very good at it. (I hope that Lucy would approve). There were a couple times where I went on my own with this very important task but that is a different story.

What is an interesting way of passing the time in the supermarket is through observation. Take note of anyone that goes past; their trolley contents, age, sex, children if any, but try to get a feel for the relationship between purchases and people.

What I noted -

Younger mothers, with kids under ten buy the most. The ratio of convenience foods (frozen pre-prepared, pre-cooked etc) to fresh produce is fairly high.

Young people, say the under-30s are usually small shoppers. I suspect this is one of perhaps three or four trips to the market this week.

Middle aged - those with no kids about indicating probably teenagers at home - seem to buy the most convenience foods and least fresh produce.

Late middle age and elderly seem to be the ones who buy least convenience foods and most fresh produce. Is this the result of tradition and culture or a matter of economic necessity? In our case it is preference, probably driven by family tradition.

The presence of children with the shopping expedition seems to result in a much higher purchase of the junk food lines - crisps and chips, sweets and soft drinks. The worst of the HFSS's.

Worst of the lot? Obvious grandparents with grandchildren in tow.

On a wider scale, the statistics that appear from time to time in the news hereabouts (and I have no reason to doubt that is the same the whole world over) indicates that lower income people are more likely to purchase more HFSS's than fresh produce.

One of the more interesting ones in recent times gave the average travel distances home to nearest takeaway outlet for various suburbs in Auckland. Furthest (greatest distance from home to a takeaway) were in the more affluent suburbs. One can argue that this is the result of rich people being willing to travel further to buy Big Macs, Fried Chicken or whatever. But in fact it seems that the demand is unable to support more outlets. Contrast this with the "poorer" parts of town. Travel distance home to outlet can be as small as 1/4 of that travelled in a "rich" area. Is this because of the cost of travel? No, it seems that people will buy the family dinner on the way home from work, or will give the eldest the money to buy dinner at McDs or BK or whereever.

The distance function is the result of the demand for the product, not the cost of travel.

So we end up with a quiet revolution from Detroit Free Press

And yet Americans in general and Michiganders in particular spend a lot more time hunting bushytails than grouse, largely because while most grouse hunting is confined to the state's northern forests far from where most hunters live, squirrels can be found everywhere.

In anticipation of telephone calls and e-mails from the uninitiated, let's say right off the bat that the primary reason to hunt squirrels is that they are delicious. Truthfully, I'd rather have a Brunswick stew or one of my friend Craig Porter's fantastic squirrel pies than grouse breasts or a venison roast.

Squirrels are incomparably tastier than supermarket chicken, beef or pork that may have been raised under questionable circumstances and took weeks or months to get to the consumer.

To which I might add that I have never tried kiore (the Pacific rat), or dog, both considered delicacies by the Maori in pre-European times. I have tried huhu - a grub not unlike the Aussies witchetty and it tastes like peanut butter which has been soaked in wood. Regretfully though, most of the wild food is getting difficult to find due to poisoning programmes for possum and rabbits, the commercialisation of deer. Pig are getting hunted out and hard to find. Goat is now farmed - had goat stew a couple weeks back and it were very good.


To return to the top, an article from Britain's "Independant"

Should we be worried about the power of supermarkets?

Yes...

* Their dominance is killing the diversity of the high street

* Suppliers are being bled dry by their cost-cutting demands

* They have the power to dictate to the consumer

No...

* They are powerful because they provide the best deal for the public

* Many investigations have failed to find any wrongdoing

* Competition between chains ensures a good deal for consumers

... and our government is adding folic acid to all bread to prevent birth defects. About 15 of them a year.

Fathers Day - 2007

A bottle of wine contains more philosophy than all the books in the world.
Louis Pasteur

So says the card given me by my beloved wife.

Here's to you Louis!!

Can I add, with the greatest of respect -

The realisation of that philosophy is beyond the reach of mortal man, but the pleasure thereof is taste beyond God!

My wife also bought me a small gift. A series of radio conversations collected in the book "As Far As We Know". Review in due course.

The family -

I have mentioned my grandfather on various occasions.

You will find this photo, and his name, in National Geographic archives. He will also appear if you google "image pamir".