Pre-Xmas Price Ridiculousness

I've been legitimately (but unfortunately) too busy to post the last week, although I've several pages of notes on various topics I want to explore. Too busy polishing my novel and exploring avenues of alternate income, and busy feeling panicked, depressed, annoyed at various things.
Yes, despite the rational-legal, adversarial framework of our society, feelings have legitimacy too.

I was just looking for Xmas presents, and found some gobsmacking prices online. Try Fishpond, for DVDs in particular. The whole of Season 2 Flight of the Conchords on DVD for.... $20?? Sure, that's the price I was waiting for, but they only released 6 weeks ago!
Snapped it up. Then, ever a sucker for paying no shipping, I picked up Neil Gaiman's "The Graveyard Book" for the same price. Neil Gaiman's coming for next year's International Festival of the Arts, so I was happy to tick this off my wish-list. Checking Amazon, I would have got it (inc shipping) for the same price in US dollars.

Crazy, crazy prices. Any others out there? I guess the psychology is they're front-loading our shopping baskets. I bought for myself; but in theory (I know Mothers fall for this), you can keep picking up presents all the way to the 25th, with the price going up as stocks run down and people get more desperate.

Waiting is virtuous; but waiting for Xmas is a trap. When things I've already committed to purchasing hit the right price point - that's the sweet spot.

ADDENDUM: Checking around a bit, it seems these prices are pretty consistent, so my view that the world tends towards madness remains intact. In this vein, it became a day where I took a browse through Neil Gaiman's blog and found his amazing Oracle. Which was kinda neat.

Do No Harm

Just had to alert to another fine piece of writing at Media Lens.
This quote, in particular:

Compassion, then, is the key concern - where best to direct our efforts in the hope of doing something to relieve suffering in the world. Journalism should be honest and rational, but it should not be indifferent or neutral - it should be biased in the direction of relieving misery. Noam Chomsky has gone so far as to suggest that a life without compassion is meaningless:

“So if you decide not to make use of the opportunities that you have; not to try to live your life in a way which is constructive and helpful, you end up looking back and say: ‘Why did I bother living?’” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zt8svS2w1I)

This position is important because it provides the psychological motivation for challenging vested interests that are keen to reward servility with status, privilege, even power. In the absence of compassion, there is every reason to conform, to toe the line - to perhaps give the appearance of adopting dissenting positions without really rocking the boat. Then journalism is a job like any other - a way of paying the bills. To be sure, Chomsky’s position is an exotic one from the perspective of much mainstream journalism. When asked what he likes about his job as a journalist, Paxman answered:

“It offers you the opportunity to meet all sorts of fascinating people... If you have a curious mind and you like words it’s a wonderful, wonderful occupation.” But the pay is not good, he warned: “The salaries are very poor... There is no job security.” Nevertheless: “It remains a fascinating way to spend your time.”

I would frame "compassion" more as "do no harm" - acknowledging that true self-interest is unknowable because we can only follow the rail of consequences so far in our tiny human brains - as is proven in matters as diverse as high school shootings and the current environmental upheaval. We should always aim to tread lightly, and provide resilient criticism when someone does start throwing their power around.

Budding journalists, take heed.

The Land Looking after The Land

"The Earth regulates itself." So goes one of the stories reeled out by those advocating NOT acting on global warming and environmental degradation. You know, because it can look after itself.

And it's a fair point. In clean green NZ, it's easy to think, looking across the green fields of the Waikato, the Marlborough vineyards, or interchanging between padded cells in one of our big cities, that all is well. That it is impossible for our little pocket of existence, even multiplied 8 billion times, could have such an effect on a mass that is 75% water anyway.

And again, it's a fair point. Or would be - if we hadn't had 60 years of Post-war industrial development, gas and chemicals masticating the planet.

It's not our personal consumption that has caused this crisis. It is the engines of industry.

One example I like to use is in Australia where they're suffering a water crisis. Now, we know the planet is warming, and we know it's only going to get worse. So there are big billboards! all over Melbourne -everyone is doing their bit having short showers, hand watering plants every second day, not leaving taps running, turning off public fountains... complaining of course, but chipping in.
Unfortunately, the private water consumption of 26 million Australians only accounts for 10% of water use. Industry takes up most of the rest, including irrigating arid, otherwise unfarmable lands.
And, like here, they want more water.

It's the same with every industry, because our economies have been geared to growth, growth growth. We've been ramping them up and up and up, drawing on huge banks of investment and credit... Yes, credit - that thing banks just make up out of thin air to "create wealth", an endless snowball of funding so industry can keep digging, and making and selling; and when that product is made obsolete three years later, they make and sell again.

Unfortunately that credit does not come out of nowhere. It is value being extracted from labour, and from the earth. Basically it's like the credit crunch - we've been drawing too much too fast from the earth's resources, and now we can't pay it back fast enough to stop the whole system collapsing.

And after spending their inheritance, we'll leave future generations to clean up our mess.

Now we have a UN report that provides an answer. It is very positive, saying we don't have to go back to personal gardens to make all our climate/economy crunches so much better:

War against hunger, global warming can be won on farmlands –
Improvements in cropland and grazing land management as well as the restoration of organic soils and degraded lands are the most significant technical measures to lessen the impact of climate change.

Nearly, 90 per cent of this potential will come from capturing carbon in the soil before it escapes into the atmosphere, according to the report, "Food Security and Agricultural Mitigation in Developing Countries: Options for Capturing Synergies."

Now, I know there are a class of people that take some perverse pleasure in insisting that chemically augmented crops are "just as good if not preferable" to organic; but I hope they're not also convinced "the earth regulates itself". Because this report clearly, but tactfully states that yes, the Earth has a great organic potential to regulate carbon itself - but we've been poisoning it on a hyper-industrial scale for 60 years.

The chemical seeds and fertilisers corporations will not be happy with this solution. So expect it to be buried, like emissions, like renewable energy, electric cars, etc, etc. Chances are this report will lie around like the other 40 years of reports warning this very situation would happen.

Unless, maybe - we tell our governments to do something different.

We've poisoned the Earth's lungs and soiled its air. Some say we didn't know any better, fine - it's not about guilt. Just use our enormous creativity and wealth - and democracy - to fix the damn thing up.

A Portrait of How Far We're Right

Tipping my hat to a couple of great "Left-wing" sites. I use the inverted commas, because "lefty" is thrown around like that means these commentators want a command economy and everyone doled out the same few cents from a bulging public purse. I've never read anything from either The Standard or Tumeke that suggests this is the case.

If they, like many of us, are pulling "left", it is because the "centre" of an intelligent, responsible government presiding over a mixed economy, was abandoned by our government 25 years ago. In 1984, the 4th Labour government (which was not "left" at all) decided the best course of action for managing the complications of a modern economy was to not manage it at all. This government and its successors have progressively sacrificed the principle that they are there to act on our collective behalf, in favour of the idea that as long as there is more money in the economy ("growth") that is an inviolate good, and makes life better for everyone.

This transfer of power away from Democracy towards Capital - the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else - was prescribed from 1972, in Samuel Huntingdon's "Crisis of Democracy", and it has been in process ever since.

The real effect of these "free market" principles have been to open society to the law of the jungle. It is feudal; it is like the wild west. But instead the power isn't with those with the army or the bigger gun. It's the bigger chequebook. Money is power. Literally you can tell where you stand in a capital-dominant society like ours, by comparing your bank-balance with that of whatever individual/organisation you're up against.

Democracy is supposed to be the balance for this. But because government accepts profit and growth as some lower common denominator that is good for everyone, they do not intervene with "red tape and regulations" - you know, safeguards. All that annoying stuff that the last Labour government started putting back in place, and National is cutting away. Or "streamlining", making "efficiency gains", or whatever crap the media swallows and spits out on our screens.

Hey - democracy is slow. It is inefficient. It is costly. But it is cheaper to combine our money and empower our government to act on housing, food, communications, energy, water, clothes, insurance - keeping the cost of living down - than it is for us as individuals to throw our cents around in a market dominated by corporate millions.
Without democracy, the only real "law" of the market is that the individual/corporation with the bigger chequebook always gets his way. As Tumeke reminds us.

Of course, people are persuaded by the idea of tax savings, tax cuts, yada yada. And you know what? Fair enough. The vast majority of people are being taxed too much, from the money they need to support themselves. It's power they need to save and expend how they choose. A real choice society.
But less tax for them does not need to come at the cost of a responsive, well-funded democracy. Because the way our economy is structured, there is a small cluster of individuals and corporations that are being taxed nowhere near enough.

I've crapped on enough for one day, but here's the Standard's post. It talks about how John Key, the prime minister of our democracy, is being spat on by the money in our society, cheer-led by Rodney Hide, Roger Douglas, Act and their corporate backers.
I wouldn't say John Key is weak, so much as he is vulnerable. He is vulnerable because he relies entirely on his support staff for political advice. He doesn't know anything about democracy, or why a cabinet room is not the same is a board room. Why we are not "NZ Inc". He comes from a banking background, so many eminently "logical" ideas about manipulating numbers for profit make sense to him without any conception of the consequences of exactly the same policy of say, oh, the last 25 years. It's be no surprise if he's suffering from impostor syndrome.

And this government is full of both crowds - the Bennetts, Tolleys, Wilkinsons, Brownlees - like those little plastic cows whose heads nod when you tap them, their knees buckle when you press the right button. They have no clue, except what will get them fed and watered and praised.
Then there're the ideologues: English, Williamson, Ryall & co, who have been sitting on the opposition benches so long, talking to themselves and their same rich friends, they don't realise the rules of the last decade don't apply any more. Their ideology, their free market has been proven broken. 2008's Financial Crisis was not just a cough - it was a heart attack, and the system has been thrust up on life-support, shuffling around until those with all their wealth and prestige invested in it can restructure so when the global economy collapses, they're not under it.
NZ's ostrich approach to Copenhagen and emissions just shows how far our government is stuck in the 90s. There is an ever-growing realisation that, uh, yeah- the Club of Rome was right: there are limits to growth. If Lord Stern of Benford says "We might all have to go vegan to save the planet", there's no point saying "he's trying to ruin our economy!" More sensibly, take that as a measure of how much ground we have to make up with other measures or some brilliant new-fandangled technology. Because man-made or cyclical, global warming is still gonna get us.

I'm reminded of the Portrait of Dorian Gray. It's like this extreme right ideology was painted for Roger Douglas in 1984, gorgeous, perfect; handed over to Ruth Richardson in the Nineties, where the painting picked up some strong vain lines and ghastly knowing eyes; under Michael Cullen it matured, remained superior, silvered, with the first signs of decay...
Of course none of these governments uncovered the portrait to look on it, less they lose its power.

So now Key and English are carrying it around, cheered on by National party triumphalism, maybe actually believing they're full of fresh, invigorating ideas. While under the cover, the painting - their ideology - has sickened and wrinkled into some jaundiced old ghoul.
There are signs around the world, mostly beneath the government level, that this has been noticed. It remains to be seen whether NZ opens its eyes, or continues to suffer under the beast riding its back.

More of this Balance needed in reporting on Israel

The Sunday broadcast on TV One last night was a rare gem.

It was regarding the demolition and evictions of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem belongs to Palestine by the UN Mandate of 1948. However, upon declaring their statehood that year, Israel used the war with Egypt, Jordan and Syria to invade and occupy East Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories, consolidating their hold in the following war with these states in 1967.

It is worth mentioning that UN Secretary General Ban has recently reaffirmed that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state.
Repeated resolutions have been made by the UN to return this territory, but Israel claims the land as spoils of war, even though the Palestinians have never been at war with Israel; and Israel has revived historical claims to the land, even though they accepted the boundaries of the UN mandate when establishing their nation in the first place.

The Sunday story pretty much speaks for itself. Israeli courts and interests rule Palestinian land. So if a court decides that a sector of East Jerusalem has always been under Israeli rule, woe betide the Palestinian family living there. Also, the fertile Palestinian population is not able to acquire building permits for everything from houses to schools to water bores; unlike Israelis.

The beauty of the Sunday piece by Ian Sinclair is that it is small, the hard facts are indisputable, and it sums up the hopeless oppression of the Palestinians without the violence and emotive clouding issue of Palestinian "terrorist tactics". If the Palestinians build their houses without permits, they break the law and they're destroyed; if they do nothing, Israeli settlements take their land.

You can decide what you like about the "legality" of the eviction. Truly to have your home taken from you by a police raid at 5am should resonate with most Kiwis, who love their family home. New Zealand also has its own history of land being taken, so we should be able to look on the situation with wiser eyes.

In my view, it has long been clear that Israel is an oppressive apartheid state. The Palestinians have no recourse to justice in the state governing them.
The Israeli government's attitude is a clear parallel to the mid-colonial government of NZ, particularly from 1873 to 1909, where it was deemed Maori were dying out and so land confiscations were legitimised and accelerated on that basis. This was legalised internally by the colonial courts, and carried out by force. Resistance was a crime.

As I have said previously, a fully integrated state like Aotearoa New Zealand would be the best answer, but impossible while Israel is committed to being a dedicated Jewish state - which is their right - so long as they accept the reality that won't cover the entire territory they'd like. Because of the UN resolutions the answer in Israel would seem a fairly simple case of "give it back", but the fact they have such power and domination over the Palestinians means they have not had to accept that reality.

Also the USA has chosen to support Israel's flouting of UN resolutions and international law, and every tragedy, death and disaster for the last 40+ years has flowed from this. Any perception of the US as being "committed to the peace process" must be seen in this context. They could fix things, easily; but they're choosing to accommodate the Israeli tactics, which appears to be to delay and appropriate as much land as possible, with the goal of annexing the entire territory with the Palestinians ghettoised into the Gaza strip or fled into Egypt or Jordan.

Certainly the views of Michael Kuttner, a Kiwi turned Israeli citizen, encapsulate this agenda. Again, the beauty of this report was that it was small, and yet it managed to capture the essence of all that is wrong in Israel.
Kuttner is a member of a group "Kiwis for Balanced Media Reporting on Israel", and it has to be said we need more of his sort of balance aired. The holier-than-thou air of "this IS our land, who cares how we claim it" and his bald assertion they'll wait as long as they have to claim the entire territory for Israel is a real reflection of the logic behind the Israeli government's strategy and their fanatical support base, know as "Zionism". They believe their millennia old quest for a nation-state did not end at 1948, even though they accepted the UN Mandate. They don't feel bound by that, because they don't feel bound by any law, much less international law, in claiming what they believe God promised them.

Of course this view is never broadcast by the Israeli government. In fact, in classic power-politics style, they project this agenda on to the Palestinians., and the various resistance/terror groups. Actually, after what they've suffered for 60+ years, I'm fairly sure any true Palestinian government and its people would be pretty relieved just to get their fair share. They deserve a representative state that can deliver them justice.

Possibly the best moment in the Sunday report came when Sinclair asked Kuttner if it might make more sense to have integrated communities.
"Oh they like living with their own people," he said, projecting his perfect apartheid racism, "It's only natural..."

We do need more balance in reporting on Israel. Let's hear less of Mark Regev and way more of these bigots speaking for themselves in their own words. Because these are the ideas that infest the Israeli state, government and courts, the unseen poison in this country and why it is intolerable for even average Palestinians who hardly want a war. We only see the poison's results, when someone goes mad with injustice, a truck or a bulldozer, or blows themselves up. Written off, as just another terrorist.