Where is the morality?

No preamble from me can do justice to the meticulous morality and teeth of this article, shredding the narrative around Israeli right and impunity, published in the London Review of Books.

Pankaj Mishra: The Shoah after Gaza.

Read, and let your moral compass free.

State of the Nation 1 - $5000 tax free a start, but not enough

I'll defer a "Fantail" state of a nation for another day to clear some of the must with a comment on the latest over at Tumeke on Phil Goff's State of the Nation. Bomber's report was interesting and personal, and strategically on the button. Specifically:

Goff's real trump card is his first $5000 tax free for all NZers. This impacts most on those who are earning the least and will be funded by a new top tax bracket that will be in the high 6 figure area so that professions not considered top tax bracket fodder don't fall foul of it.

The $5,000 tax free may be a trump card, but the difficulty Labour face this year was demonstrated in TV1's coverage of the speech. Their report didn't cover how Labour would pay for it: instead they cut to John Key saying that costly, overseas creditor "pixies (3x)" would pay for the cut - breaking up any the Labour narrative with what amounts to a bald opposition lie.

This is of course unsurprising coming from the national broadcaster, who have spent the last two years treating Key like a neutral political commentator and the vast majority of their stories focussed on taking pokes at the out-of-power opposition party instead of questioning the very in-power government. I remembered my jaw dropping when this soft-soaping started, the very first government policy release coming from the ACT party (appropriately). It was about on "cutting red tape" and passing legislation to allow people to opt out of the building code. (I reckon most of the good people of Christchurch are probably quite happy with about all that annoying bureaucratic tapes and codes stuff bout now). Mark Sainsbury interviewed on this Rodney Hide with all the rigour of a Swedish massage, and very little has changed.

Besides the media living in its own self-reflective balloon of public perception, The Youth Idol element of Key is definitely there - first time voters tend to "rage" against the incumbent government, and many young people know no government other than Clark's. Of course the real rebellion is to vote as Left as possible to try and get our society somewhere back to a reasonable centre again. Largely, that demographic is there for the taking, if they can be motivated. Most are at worst ignorant, if not poor, angry and scared.

Finally, the over 50K cadre should not be ignored. They're not homogeneous, and from my experience, household incomes have to reach 50K just for 2 people to be healthy and debt free - and that's renting, no retirement, no savings. That the tax brackets are marked at 14K, 48K and 70K gives a false impression of what is rich and what it costs to live in our society.
Markedly, it punishes and causes gripes for those struggling under 70K; and it groups all those people earning 70K with those earning millions, as if they have anything in common, in lifestyle or obligation to the community that has supported their success.

Phil Goff was right to point to those 700 multi-millionaires who grabbed another $1000 a week from John Key's tax cuts. That's 36 million from the wealth and health of our public services - gone.

So what's the state of our nation?

Let's see what the PM has to say later today.

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.

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.

King Brian

I caught a bit of Close Up last night, with Brian Tamaki (Pastor? Bishop? King?) of Destiny's Church in a bit of a debate with Mark Vrankovich from Cult Watch.

They both had a few good points. Brian was likely correct in that he had turned many people's lives around, put them on a self-respecting track, maybe a track to respecting a lot more than themselves.

The problem is, he's not very humble about it. In fact, he seems to be accepting praise, glory - and now oaths of allegiance. He doesn't seem to see a problem with that, but it is, as Vrankovich points out. The Christian faiths, and every church I know of, actually, are supposed to subordinate their ministers to their God. Focusing the adulation on a specific man and maybe his inheritors is, well... kingmaking.

In this respect, Destiny seems to fail the test of a church.

But is it a cult? It must be said, oaths of allegiance are not uncommon in our society. A quick google turns up a Parliamentary Oath, Oath of Allegiance, the Judicial Oath, the Executive Councillor’s Oath, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary’s Oath, the armed forces oath, the citizenship oath, the local government member’s declaration, the police oath, and the special constable’s oath, all in our legislation.

And what are employment contracts if they are not legally enforceable oaths of allegiance? Employees hand over a lot of their personal values and integrity and promise to serve their company or corporation's interest to the best of their ability. We consider is "professional" to subjugate our person in this way, merging into a body corporate to one singular end.

For business that singular end is profit, and as a society we accept that goal, and expect business to direct their private armies properly within whatever legal restraints are set on them.

The difference with the Destiny Body Corporate, is that we have no idea how King Tamaki might direct his oath-sworn army in relation to society and the law. And "god only knows" what benefit Church members get for their money. He may just be a con man, But given his trend of self-aggrandisement, and the glib and scornful references he makes to democratic society in his sermons, it is sensible to be watchful at the least.

More Bloodshed

Afghanistan and Pakistan suffer further. Of course it's been happening for a while, but I felt it worthy of a brief post, in relation to my earlier post on Iraq.

In Pakistan, it was Orna Guerin from the BBC who fronted for pictures of death and destruction after a bomb blast killed more than 90 people. The bomber "parked his car outside a mosque" apparently, which is interesting to hear - no evidence it was necessarily a suicide bomber. It would have been interesting to know if any notables were killed, but this was apparently a very soft civilian target.

The online account from Reuters said no one has claimed responsibility, but blame immediate fell upon the Taliban. Naturally.

But that makes no sense. Killing your own people, undermining your own support base in a time when therre are foreign forces rampaging through your country? Crazy - but, ah, yes: a story we in the West have become used to hearing.

Just for a quick check, let's go through the other possible suspects:

"Al-Qaeda" - Hmm, these guys usually claim responsibility, with some frown-worthy digital transmission. Motive? The ever-successful plan of taking over the world with an Islamic Jihad, based on the brilliant strategy of blowing up your own people.
Maybe that's why the mighty octopus with arms and cells all across the world has dropped off the radar lately.

Other previously unknown terrorist group: Well, if it's a publicity stunt, they'd do well to put out a press release. Or some statement of their cause. Maybe they've got lazy because the US Department of Defense usually writes them for them. Otherwise they fall into the "Amazingly well-resourced Crazies" Al-Qaeda basket.

Pakistan Military or Intelligence (ISI): Ahh, now we're getting somewhere. Resources? Check. Motive? Pleasing their American funders, check. Justifying military incursion, check. Justifying their internal authority in the struggle with the democratic government, check. Eroding the support base for the "Taliban in Pakistan" (read, anyone who opposes Pakistan's role in the War since 9/11) by vilifying them, check. Maybe there was even a specific leader killed in the blast.
This is entirely in line with the strategy of stalwarts of the War on Terror, such as Indonesian Intelligence, who have a long history of supporting terror in their own country to justify moving their military into disputed regions.

CIA black-ops or NATO/US sponsored mercenaries: yes, it could even have been NZ's own SAS, we don't know. Motive? For all the reasons above. But with the ISI being so compliant, I don't think it would have been necessary. First rule of Colonialism is let the natives do the work where you can.

False-flag Terror group: this is where native mercenaries are paid to act like a terror group. Motive? For all the reasons above. See "First Rule of Colonialism" above, and the entire digital existence of the Amazing Al-Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Taliban: Or of course, this "Taliban" problem that has popped up in Pakistan, particularly since US troops started redeploying from Iraq. Crazy, crazy, Taliban. See "Al Qaeda", above.

And of course, lets not forget the Kabul shooting.
Interesting that Reuters let the copy read as "a blast", when it was in fact a targeted shooting of UN officials and foreigners. The TV report I saw admitted "this was incredibly unlike the Taliban and daring" but justified by saying it showed how insecure the situation in Kabul is, and it was an attack in the lead up to the presidential run-off.

Maybe, although it shows poor tactics. It is crucial with shootings to know who the victims were, what they were doing. The UN always comes under attack, because occupying armies do not want them and local resistance see them as soft targets who are facilitating the occupation.
Needless to say, the shooting could have been committed by any of the groups above, or their equivalents.

It is worth pointing out that the American commander of the region is now General Stan McChrystal. To have a beer and a laugh with the General, go here. Otherwise, let's end with a quote from Global Research about this little smiler:

McChrystal was a special favorite of Rumsfeld and Cheney because he was in charge of the ‘direct action' forces of the ‘Special Missions Units. ‘Direct Action' operative are the death-squads and torturers and their only engagement with the local population is to terrorize, and not to propagandize. They engage in ‘propaganda of the dead', assassinating local leaders to ‘teach' the locals to obey and submit to the occupation. Obama's appointment of McChrystal as head reflects a grave new military escalation of his Afghanistan war in the face of the advance of the resistance throughout the country.

Ah well. Sorry, sorry... if I manage to keep away from the news, hopefully my next post will be more heartening.

Neo-colonial Iraq still a Mystery

As an event, the two explosions just outside Baghdad's government Green Zone on Monday (NZ time) leaving 155 dead, hundreds more injured, was impossible for global media to ignore.

That does not mean, we have seen, that they know what to say about it.

The TV ONE report had little story to go with its pictures. One shot was from one of those increasingly common, frown-worthy "impromptu" snaps from a cell phone camera, catching the moment of explosion perfectly in frame before the obligatory shaking. In the age of digital media and "social networking waves", we can never be too cynical about where such footage comes from. Not when there is a war being waged.

Of course, we haven't heard much of Iraq, lately - more about Afghanistan and Pakistan, which together form the three active theatres for US troops and their allies encircling Iran - which coincidentally had a very precise "bomb attack" on its border armed forces recently.
Wikipedia is a grossly unreliable source for such events, but I notice the battle of narrative there shifts back and forth between a bomb attack and a suicide attack. The difference, in all such explosions, is significant.

So after months of "relative quiet" where the "Surge" and "Handover" are supposed to have mostly established order, and the focus has been on the colonising army's withdrawal, the press have lost the thread of what story they are supposed to tell.
The TV ONE reporter didn't know who perpetrated the crime, and as usual, who was killed, although government offices were targeted. He didn't know "why". Almost meekly, he used the word "insurgents", just once, but enough to attribute the blame. The word that filled in his report nicely because the story there is so obvious, bedded into the years and years of narrative they've already laid down.
And fially, the tell-tale of a reporter with no clue what to say, we see him walking down a nice Baghdad market street that might have been the Riviera, exclaiming at what a "contradiction" the massive explosion made.

A contradiction? Or rather, is it the consequence of a chain of events, a story, the press has not been following.

So who perpetrated the criminal blast? The simple and plain fact is the media, and we the general public, don't know. As we almost always don't know, but are led to believe otherwise by the story that we have become used to hearing, wrapped around a pile of bodies after a blast. When there is no wrap-around press statement issued - usually from the White House or Pentagon, those authorities that the Western media respects - the news product ends up like last night: Bland, factless almost, and directionless; pointless, no matter how they tried to dress it up.
Which is almost any story from a war zone should be.

It is no lie that the first casualty of war is truth. Stories are crucial, and those with power seize them to their end. And the whole world has been subject to a creeping "Long War" since 9/11.

*

Back to the Baghdad blast, there are still questions that can be raised from it, and the tips of some are observable in this Reuters report.

First, from my observation of the war, the scale of this blast points to high-grade explosives. The Bali bombs, for instance, were very sophisticated military-grade devices, resulting in 200 victims. Detonations of such scale are rare because of skill in the construction and access to resources. Anything over fifty dead, even twenty, raises a flag for me.

Second, the methods were car/van. Iraqi government says two suicide drivers. Other reports say just a car and van.
As above, this is crucial. It does not take a suicidal martyr to make a car or truck bomb. There is substantial evidence from within Iraq that Coalition black ops teams used that very means to intimidate and eliminate local opposition and fuel "ethnic" or tribal tensions, Just as they are operating in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan now. Making the world safer. That is what Black ops does.

Compounding this, over the period of Iraq's recolonisation there have been reports of Iraqi Government forces and "Wolf" militias doing this very same thing, after being trained by American forces. Like any good colonial government, they have learnt that this is an acceptable use of power in a time of strife.

This is where the key question in the story comes in, the one that is nearly always lost in the global media's story, because if you look too close you can find a much clearer motive.
So much has been explained away in Iraq as "ethnic conflict", and "Baath party hold-outs" where that story does not fit - not to mention the Amazing Digital Existence of "Al Qaeda in Iraq's" Al-Zarqawi. It is notable that Iraq expert Robert Fisk absolutely rejects any historical basis to Iraq's supposed Shi-Sunni ethnic conflict.
Nonetheless, for so long when people die, they are designated as Sunni and Shi'ite. Yet that is so often just part of a story - where they scholars? Were they scholars associated by a desire to organise a popular movement? Were they all killed in similar fashion, execution style? Was one a particularly respected local leader?
All stories, questions lost, under the ethnic blanket.

The fact these latest attacks were so close to the government district suggests they were made by a group with access to not only skills and resources, but contacts in (if not part of) the centre of power, as well as some dissatisfaction with some evolving political trend or upcoming decision. None of that suggests "fringe wacky-backy insurgents" to me.

Besides whatever laws are before the occupied nation's parliament, the most significant development I know of is the upcoming withdrawal of US from Baghdad, then from Iraq the next year. The attack may be an early strike by forces looking to assert authority once the country is no longer under direct threat of foreign force. Or, with things so "peaceful" and the American-built walls coming down across the city, it may be an attack designed to "convince" the American forces to stay.

Like good journalists, we'll not prejudge, but wait to see if further attacks occur, and what stories are spun to explain them.

Much MMP Goodness

Carrying on from yesterday, Mr Bear's Shadow has been on fire, on target - and under fire for hitting the mark so truly - on the early exchanges over MMP and the push for a more diluted democracy.

I spent most of my blog time responding there. Make no bones, I'm about principles - of good capitalism in a democracy of real choice and real freedom - I'm not for any particular party, or mode of politics. I don't do battlelines, but there IS a culture war going on. The important thing is to repeat and reaffirm our shared principles. It's the nxt important step to real change.

And maybe it's just wishful thinking, but are the mainstream media beginning to stir from their post-electoral love-nest with this government?
From Centralising Auckland to Centralising our Health management system (less autonomy, less democracy); throwing our national health insurance ACC, to the global insurance wolves who were up to their collective orifices in the Global Financial Crisis - yeah, remember that? Not just a bubble, but a hole, which has been hastily covered over - resulting in our extraordinarily high Kiwi dollar (there's a blog for a later date).

All these are enough to stir worries for your average Kiwi - there must be questions, and I think they'll start wanting to hear them aired, and some real answers fished from the daily mainstream bunch, otherwise why tune in?
I sense a drag effect, TV3's team, pulling TVONE on maybe a day behind... We'll see. But I think Phil Goff has had some serious air time recently. Our journalists may be conservative, but they have their buttons, and privatisation and MMP are two of them. And hearing Rodney Hide lisping on meekly, "like, he don't do no one no wrong" - that's gotta get on anyone's nerves.

Actually, sorry Rodney, it's not your fault you lisp. I just preferred it when you bellowed, and professed your real goals and values like the old days in opposition; rather than sneaking things in now that you're in government, giving old pals jobs on undemocratic bodies like the Super-City transitional authority, and legislating a user-pays everything, even a building code, for crissakes.

How many people can this government piss off how quickly? Time to start keeping count.

Breakfast with Marie Antoinette

Is there a worse experience in the country than waking up to Paul Henry?

I mean, there you are, in your gown, a bit of toast, turn the TV on - and IT's on the screen.

Pure accident of course. And I know, everyone knows, it's scarcely worth mentioning. But he just happened to be leading a segment that perfectly captured everything that is so odious about him.

He was talking about the referendum on MMP.

John Key of course mumbled something not too loud about holding the referendum pre-election, and so Henry (ex National Party candidate) championed it as the inviolate virtue "keeping his promise to the NZ Public."

Honestly, the only policies I can remember from Key and National was cycleway and super-fast broadband. Everything else was maybes, mumbling and "we'll have that discussion when...".

Henry was interviewing the excellent electoral and constitutional expert Jonathan Boston from Victoria University (my alma mater), which was home to an MMP review working group when the electoral system came up for review in 2000.

I actually sat in on the session where Professor Boston made a submission for improvements that year - the discussion went very much as you'd expect between an expert with a PhD from Oxford and a dozen party politicians who don't know pol-sci from that thing where old people get shaky hands.
It is an indelible failing of our political system that the people voted to represent us have very little understanding of democracy or constitutional power. It makes them very vulnerable to persuasive "common-sense" and "pragmatism" from rich people promising to make us all richer. If we just make them even richer first.

Paul Henry is, of course, both: both wealthy and thinks a constitution is something you need for a good Friday night.

Actually, he gave Professor Boston a fairly good platform to say what he wanted, which was the least we can ask. Boston made it very clear that any problems with MMP can be fixed within MMP. I would add - it is crucial to add - that to see if MMP works, you have to compare and contrast with what it was fixing: that is First Past the Post (FPP). And on the balance, and by the standards set out by the Electoral Reform Commission, it has been a raging success.

At creating a more representative, more legitimate form of democratic government.

Regression to FPP or it's bastard nephew, Supplementary Member (SM), will result in less democracy. In our society, there is an undeniable and necessary conflict between democracy and capitalism. The Big Money in our country just want it even more their way.

That is why National are pushing for it. That is why wealthy lobbyists are building war-chests and PR campaigns for it.

That said, it is likely that there are many people who are not wealthy who have developed frustration with MMP. With the confusion. The threshold. The Maori seats. The number of well-paid MPs.

And I say to them: if you are struggling, in our society, with mortgages and rent, rising energy and phone and food costs, it is very easy to work out what is in your best interest: More democracy.

MMP is good democracy, but it can be made better. SM is less good. FPP is not good at all.

And if you still find it hard to work out what's in your best interest, remember Paul Henry. Because he is NOT a democrat. He is an autocrat - even an aristocrat, our own squealing, honking, wine-sipping Marie Antoinette. He and his pals live on the fat of our land, he pollutes our airwaves and gets paid for it and broadcasts his personal point of view as if only it makes sense.

"Because New Zealanders are stupid," he said this morning, "most of the people out there are stupid." And he believes that, because we go along and vote stupid and make our own lives harder.

2011 is plenty of time to show him who's stupid.

Some Prime News

I was heading out the door when I caught an article on Prime (Sky) News at 5:30, about the "mistreatment" of tigers in Russian circuses.

I missed the name of the reporter, but it was the same toffy Anglo-Irish shrivelled-lemon old tart who I've heard droning over footage from other "barbaric lands", usually war-struck, always morally deficient compared to Western superiority.

I was laughing my arse off. My wife is a critical observer of animal welfare, so didn't see the joke at first. But the woman was narrating: "they looked visibly distressed", "small cages", although the images didn't match in the slightest. They even looked very well cared for and well-fed, although the roving Sky tiger-expert told me otherwise. It was the sort of footage you could only imagine came from an open cheery exchange with the circus owner, then they plastered their fairytale voice-over over the top.

It was a long segment, and only got funnier. Our storyteller goes on to say how the circuses are hugely popular in Russia, but still manages to drag a minority voice to the microphone and translate their words. Classic ethnocentrism - "the Barbarians are over there!" There are plenty of minority voices of sanity being drowned out by stupidity in our own fat Western capitalist backyard.

I've found a link to the corresponding article in Sky's "Animal X-ploitation!" section, but no footage. (I will refrain from ascribing it to the online credited reporter, in case they're not the same, but I will look out for her name next time.) Every time I hear this woman's horrid whining voice, there's always some parody of journalism on screen. It's like a scene from Mallrats: "That bat is on the propaganda wagon again!"

Honestly sweetheart: memo your editor. Fix climate change. Global capitalism. Needless deaths from Imperialist wars. People swamped by rising cost of living. Your own backyard. THEN worry about other countries and the pretty tigers jumping through rings.

Support a market pillar: truth in labelling

Freedom of Information in the marketplace is one of the three keys to a functioning capitalist economy, according to economist Adam Smith, the acknowledged father of capitalism. It informs self-interest, which allows the market to work as well as possible.

Just one tiny part of what we as "consumers in a (supposedly) free market" are entitled to is truth in labelling on our products. This includes country of origin labelling (CoOL) for things like fresh fruit and veges. In an era where out of season grapes or whatever can cross the world - possibly depriving local markets to gain higher profits here in NZ, with all the associated costs to the planet from the use of fuel and emissions - it seems not only just and democratic but common sense that vendors be required to supply country of origin information.

The reason it isn't, of course, is because some importers don't want that information made available, for the very reason it might affect our decision. So our government (National and Labour) keep the shades pulled on us - so much for an "open market".

Send the PM a postcard asking him to fix this.

This is just one tiny example of the topic that I'm going to be exploring over the coming weeks, months. Adam Smith laid out very clear rules for good market performance, and ever since (especially since the 1970s), his philosophy has been exploited, distorted and paid lip service to in ways that would horrify him.

Enlightened self-interest is a delicate mechanism enough. Trying to make decisions on what's in your best interest while companies and corporations are spendng millions to hide and distort information; which our governments allow it to happen; and then justify their non intervention in the name of a "free market"...?

It is an absolute abomination. Not only is it anti-democratic, it is anti-capitalist. It is the thoughtless collaboration of elites, the product of governments thinking about their self-interest, rather than its citizens' self-interest. And guess what the information in the market tells government their self-interest is?

Growth, growth, profit. Lowest common denominator. Make us rich, and everything for everyone will be all right....

Governments are vulnerable. Like the media, they are truly dumb and blind. When they hear this song of wealth, and the people are misinformed, marginalised, or silent, what choice do they have but to go along with it?

This is the story of the world, and a song that has played us like fools here in NZ since 1984. But there is huge potential for change, maybe not this government, but maybe the next election, or the next. We just have to work out what we want... and ask.

Honestly, our system only benefits 20% of the population and is ruining the environment at the same time. Real change, real soon.... it's only a matter of time.

Start by sending Mr Key a postcard.

Death of Self-Interest: The Moment of Doubt

I keep starting a post on the death of ideological self-interest, but I'm in a patch where I'm being exposed to a lot of stimulating ideas on the subject, a subject which is embedded in our social fabric. There are so many ways of coming at it that my writing keeps branching off into new fields, the boundaries of which are heretofore unseen.

So, unable to spiel on about it (probably unreadably) I shall tackle the topic in bite-sized morsels, see where they lead, beginning with the moment of doubt.

Dr Wayne Cartwright is an economist. As in schooled and trained in the 70s, and deeply invested in the "science" of capitalist economics that has dominated the world for the very same period. It was his life's work, what he taught and studied every day. Until, in the late nineties, he encountered a moment of doubt.

He framed this moment as being a catholic priest who no longer believed his own dogma. The comparison is one I have used many times myself, and it is stunningly apt. The Catholic Church emplaced a social order that allowed their monarchs and vassals - who were essentially brutal, robber barons - to rule by the divine right of kings.
The same is the case today. The "science" of our economists is also used to establish a social order, where the divine right of global capital holds the same, undemocratic and ruthless sway over the world that the swords of England's monarchs held over their subjects.

These moments of doubt are crucial. Everyone has them, and they deal with them in different ways. It is often a small thing, that finally ticks over, the last straw. Dr Cartwright's moment was realising in 1997 how grotesquely unsustainable NZ dairying had become in such a short time, and how desperate the industry was to grow further, all because of the precepts laid down by his economics.
Not an especially dramatic insight, you'd think, but in these moments you're on a precipice. You can either dig in, bury your head further - Dr Cartwright had every reason to, he'd committed 40 years to this ideology, it was his livelihood, and there is a massive framework of influence and wealth, of media, ready to support this outlook; or you can face facts, and search for another way.

The well-respected economist, Dr Wayne Cartwright, became a realist. He realised that the science he had been trained in no longer existed. He realised this because he is a scientist. And his economics had been proven wrong.

Economics ceased being a science when it started ignoring results. It became a dogma. It refused to accept consequences, externalising the environment, therefore securing the integrity of its own abstract, fantastical fairytale. And the wealth this ideology garnered for the world's elite and corporate citizens totally eliminated the idea of "consequences" from our vocabulary.

Terrorism? Inexplicable aggression. Climate Change? Cyclical. Disgust with the rich? Envy.

In 1961 we used 30% of the world's sustainable capacity; In 1999, we were using 120%. But there are no problems, only opportunities. No consequences, only challenges.

Except for the poor and out-of-work and dispossessed in society, the marginalised, the growing numbers struggling to meet the rising cost of living. That's just the consequence of their actions.

The current set-up benefits the wealthiest 10% in the world, in our country, very nicely. They don't want us examining the fundamentals underpinning the structures of power. They want us to crawl over each other, chain our intellect, sacrifice our integrity just to be one of them. And many people do.

But there's never enough room at the top. The fairytale will never be real for 80% of the population. And more and more people are facing that moment of doubt, exponentially so as the obvious becomes blindingly obvious. And if an economist can choose the right side - the realist's side - that's reason to hope.

(Dr Cartwright is one of many published in the paper Strong Sustainability for New Zealand)

And the prize goes to....

POTUS Obama.

Like (probably) everyone, I was incredulous at his award of the Nobel Prize for Peace. I thought of past winner's (such as Dr El Baradei from the International Atomic Energy Agency, who has done everything that he can to navigate the intense poltical pressure from the West and still speak the truth about the Iranian nuclear project) and I became a little bit outraged.

Because, as we know, Obama has done nothing to further world peace since taking power. He's merely let things silkily slide in direction the powers around him are pulling, towards more conquest and bloodshed in the Middle East and Eurasia.

I pulled my head in though, realising this was a odd step for the Nobel committee. I remembered George Bush was nominated for the same award, oddly, on at lest one occasion... And I think I figured it out.

Meanwhile the TV1 & TV3 news were sounding off on the issue, in a very unusual way.

They were asking questions.

The whole news item was pitched as a question, questioning whether the POTUS Obama was a worthy recipient, and was canvassing this doubt in every way possible with footage from all over the world.

Now, this stood out because, well - the news never asks questions. They have an angle on the story, they take it; then allocate token time for some opposition viewpoint. There, balance. Most often this angle favours the centre of power, where the current NZ government resides. Certainly they never take an angle against the centre of Western power.

Not unless the question has already been raised elsewhere.

So dismiss the NZ news agencies. All their coverage and questioning has not come from within our media establishment. Certainly we can blink and imagine them covering the same story in a very different way, with Obamam lauded as the first black president and bringing US power back to the international community in a spirit of multilateral cooperation.... All bullshit, but it's always bullshit. They are nothing but stories, pulled over the facts on the ground.

So this angle, these questions, have been imported, like all our news, from the centre of the global media establishment. Reuter, AP, the US outlets...

And why then, would the global media take this angle on the leader of the free world, when there is easily a positive, celebratory angle they could have taken? Why is it that "even" US commentators are.... displeased their president has been awarded this honour? Sure, even now he's talking of sending more troops into Afghanistan, rasing the stakes against Iran... but it's all for world peace. It's such a turn, after all this "fresh face" talk to see him so insidiously criticised, undermined with doubts and aspersions... That's what we'e been told. Why doesn't he deserve the award?

It's because it's not an award, the committee are conferring. It's a mantle.

They're not saying "good job". They're saying, "now go do a good job".

They have given Obama a huge yardstick to measure his own actions against, possibly the only honour greater for an American than actually becoming president. What we hear in the media is the wailing and gnashing of teeth as they know - I believe - Obama is a man of honour, being pulled into a foreign policy against his will. He has been allowed his "socialist" healthcare policy so long as he doesn't interfere with the strategic designs of global American power. But now that has been counter-balanced. He will always be thinking, "but - I have an obligation to everyone". He has a history of past winners and a legacy to keep in mind. Not just for the next year; hopefully he is reminded of it in every press article from here to the next election.

Big boots to fill. I have no doubt he's facing his own little "imposter syndrome", but I think the committee made an excellent choice.

Newsflash: Media "speechless" at distrust

I do mean to come back to Dr Wayne Cartwright's talk on strong sustainability - it'll find it's time. But my day started with a brief segment on tV3's "Sunrise" programme with Oliver Driver and co and a couple of media mavens discussing a poll of "only 750" who said they hated/distrusted the media.

Driver blamed the focus on selling and rating, and the celebrity focus. Some tried to blame "us" for not understanding how hard it was for them to put together the news, while "only a poll of 750" was scoffed at several times. Like they ever headcount any other poll that makes a story.

And despite all the noise and talking over each other, they were actually at a loss to explain it. Speechless. And, almost contemptuously dismissive of their low standing. Like they knew better.

Fortunately for them, Media Lens also put out a story today, and it answers their exact question. Why the media are so utterly unworthy of our trust.

A quote: (emphasis mine)

Last month, Milton Coleman, senior editor at The Washington Post, sent a memo to staff on the issue of use of “individual accounts on online social networks, when used for reporting and for personal use”. The memo warned staff to "remember that Washington Post journalists are always Washington Post journalists". It added:

"All Washington Post journalists relinquish some of the personal privileges of private citizens... Post journalists must refrain from writing, tweeting or posting anything—including photographs or video—that could be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism that could be used to tarnish our journalistic credibility. This same caution should be used when joining, following or friending any person or organization online.”

These rules echo BBC editorial guidelines. In 2005, we asked the BBC's World Affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds, if he thought George Bush hoped to create a genuine democracy in Iraq. Reynolds replied:

"I cannot get into a direct argument about his policies myself! Sorry." (Email to Media Lens, September 5, 2005)

Reynolds explained to one of our readers:

"You are asking for my opinion about the war in Iraq yet BBC correspondents are not allowed to have opinions!" (Forwarded to Media Lens, October 22, 2005)

As these comments suggest, media guidelines require that journalists relinquish, not just "personal privileges", but also moral responsibility.

Journalists are not free to declare their “bias” even in abhorring mass murder, war crimes and climate chaos, if doing so "could be used to tarnish" their employers' "journalistic credibility". The problem is that the people with the power to do the tarnishing are overwhelmingly of the right - big business and political centres of power dominated by big business.

In reality, the demand for ’balance’ means that journalists can say pretty much what they like in favouring powerful interests, but they will be severely castigated for losing ‘balance’ when they criticise the wrong people. Thus we find that it is not ‘biased’ to suggest that Britain and America are committed to spreading democracy around the world, but it +is+ ‘biased’ to suggest that they are responsible for crimes in the Third World. In short, the demand for ‘balance’ is a weapon of thought control - it is a way of policing and enforcing bias in media performance.

The full article is pitched perfectly. The issue is there are actually three sides to any story. The interests of power; those with interests oppostie to those in power; and the status quo. Most media tries to place itself in this "objective" status quo place, without acknowledging that the status quo is already firmly weighted towards those in power, and get dragged along with it. In our extremist capitalist society, that is inexorably in favour of the wealthy, towards the "Right".

The obeisance to power was shown only yesterday, with the change of pseudoephadrine to a Class B drug, doubling the cost to those who use it for colds and flu, just because some criminals use it. Just because Paul Holmes' daughter got on P, and the upper class got frightened. The whole pitch from the media was "good, strong government". No opposition voice of note.

Roll back a year, and if the Labour government had tried this there'd be huge cries of "nanny state".

The most painful example of the blind media bias is of course in the Middle East. Look at the status quo there:

If the Palestinians do nothing? They lose their land to Jewish settlements.
If they attack? They get massacred, persecuted, and still lose their land. Oh, and their persecutor cries "victim".
If they go along with the "US peace process"? Well they can't agree to anything because Israel won't define its borders in line with UN resolutions - after more than 40 years. (bet Iran wishes it had that sort of deadline).
And hey, what would happen if the supposed "cycle of hate" ended; what if the Palestinians and Muslims said, "you know? this isn't worth it. Lets make it one country. We'll live in Israel. You call it it that. We call it Palestine. We'll be a peace-loving democracy sharing the same land holy to us both. No problem."
Well, that's not possible, of course. Not because normal people in both countries don't want peace. But because Isreal is a jewish state. That's a theocracy - not a democracy. The government of Israel has been committed to a Jewish state across the holy state since inception, and if they let whoever they want live in Israel, they'd be an ethnic Muslim state within years.

The Israel/Palestine situation is a very simple story of power and injustice, but you wouldn't know it by the way the media fret and follow the narrative spooled out from the US.

And they wonder why we don't trust them.

An Eye on Media Lens

I'm taking it easy today, because one of the great sources of research and media analysis has made yet another incisive, accurate contribution.

Media Lens is the unpaid labour of freedom and love of several excellent British Media commentators, aimed at holding the distorted narrative of the commercial press to account, offering some perspective. Today they deliver a wonderful piece on the propaganda campaign against Iran. Their clinical common-sense compared to the lyrical rabble-rousing of the "Guardian" writers (supposedly a lefty, liberal press) is an astonishment and a delight.

A favourite from today's article:

"The lunacy of the current propaganda campaign against Iran is bad enough. The fact that it comes so soon after the lies on Iraq - every last one of them now exposed for all to see - makes it far worse. But it is taken to an altogether different level by the fact that the last set of concocted threats has resulted in the devastation of an entire country, with over one million killed and four million made refugees (they are still out there, although not for the mainstream media). The icing on this malevolent cake is that there is next to no reference to these horrors in the latest media propaganda campaign. There is no sense that journalists recognise the consequences of what they helped make happen in Iraq. There is no sense that they feel even a tiny tug of horror at the prospect of repeating the same catastrophe in Iran.

As Noam Chomsky has observed, it is not that they want to cause harm; they simply step on Third World people the way they might step on ants."

It sums quite succinctly the problem with the Western media, and with its NZ followers. Whatever your political persuasion, or interest in politics and news, Media Lens are a must read, just to put your own point of view into context.

A good friend in the business news in Britain read their book, "Newspeak in the 21st Century" and it totally levelled his respect for even the "liberal" media. In fact, he said he preferred Fox news now, because at least they wear their prejudices on their sleeve.

The end result is, of course, we in the West base our opinions on a fraction of the facts, distorted and represented as the full story. Repeated over, and over, and over...

What we need, in NZ at least, is a real current affairs programme. Not the magazine investigations of 20/20, or the increasingly tabloid Close-Up and Campbell Live. After the banal and misinformative "daily snapshot" of the 6pm news they should have an hour where the real continuing stories can be explored. If the facts were properly canvassed and revised and reiterated and followed every day, there'd be a lot less controversy over Palestine. Iran. Environmental matters. Maybe even the economy.

C'mon. We're a civilised country, right? First World? Who's scared of a little real information? It is crucial, for both capitalism and democracy. Who's scared of change?

Well, as always, the people who are already very happy with the status quo.

Advertising - fuck, yeah!

I watched the Fair Go ad awards last night. Verdict: less cringe-worthy than usual. The Primary school competition entries were better than the Secondary schools'. Had to put up with the usual gushing over how creative this parasitic industry is. Particularly from some Colmar Brunton advertising honcho dribbling on how about ads represent our country, and another triple-chinned going on how advertising was good because it helped competition. It helped people make choices.

Uh-huh. Really.

I think the competition remark was aimed at the NZ telecoms industry in particular, and as far as duopoly-busting goes, a few weeks of pitch-perfect advertising with Rhys Darby has had an immediate impact. At least in raising 2 Degrees profile. But that is because the demand was already there as the gouging Vodafone and Telecom turned us into a country of texters. We'll see if 2 Degrees lasts the distance against the heavy-weight money. We saw what happened with Kiwi Air etc, in that other big monopolistic industry.

Ultimately, advertising is only as good as your pockets are deep, because the established players don't just run a "launch campaign". They are there, everywhere, everyday, insinuating into the lives and identities of their target market from age 0.

Advertising is at best neutral in terms of its contribution to competition (putting it mildly) because it benefits the status quo of these corporate market leaders. Also, it forces the newcomers to a market to leverage themselves into the same world of grotesque mummery, possibly compromise values of independence, integrity and honesty doing deals just to raise the funds, much less participate in the "image" war with their competitors.

Furthermore, it corrupts at least one of Adam Smith's three key principles to an effective capitalist free market: there must be true and information in the marketplace for the individual to make a decision on their enlightened self-interest.

Remember Ribena, anyone, and their vitamin C content? Found out by... no, not government agencies, or watchdogs - school children. The penalty for one of the world largest food groups, the largest economic entities in the world? Oh yeah - 200 grand. And an apology. And a slap on the wrist.

Oh, a few bad apples, I hear you say. Well, we don't know. Because there is no one checking the information they put in the marketplace. Not the state. Not the UN. Not the media. Ever notice how few reports there are about companies and corporations on the news? Not a conspiracy, mind -the risk of getting sued just isn't worth any investigation. Not when there're so many press-releases filling their inboxes every day. Much easier to just package them. Call them "news".

Moreover, there is scarcely a penalty when a corporation is caught, and certainly no actual living person held responsible. That's the cool thing about being a corporation. You are taxed at less than the top tax rate; you have the same rights under law as any living breathing person, and you live forever. Accumulating money - power - over all that time, paying for advertising, lawyers, lobbyists... Heck, who needs a vote?

Rhys Darby's role in the 2 Degrees ad campaign was perfectly targeted. It even had the competition scared. A group of wealthy notaries - shareholders of Vodafone and Telecom, no doubt - scrambled to muster a "Drop the Rate, Mate," campaign, ostensibly to influence a drop in the dupolists' calling charges. It hasn't really been heard of since. No surprise, cos it was just PR dressing for a few phone calls and board meetings their real "mates" will have, colluding to combat 2 Degrees. (Shouldn't they just stick to farming, or banking, or whatever?)
Another day in the office.

Look at 2 Degrees though. Rhys Darby, beloved comedian, received money in compensation for promoting something he neither knows nor cares about. 2 Degrees hadn't even launched yet. The teleco bosses got his number off someone who knew his mother. The ad was a hit. Acceptable. No acrimony.

Roll back a month or so, and we have Keisha Castle-Hughes, beloved actress, promoting environmental awareness - something she does know about, and does care about - for no money. Displaying an astounding lack of self-awareness, she was told to "stick to acting" by our Prime Minister, former merchant banker John Key. Cue the laugh-track from the money-huggers, the power-groupies and the elite. Although the PM eventually saw reason and apologised for his gaffe.... why was Keisha such a threat?

So, there's the state of our civilisation. That's the legacy of "advertising" in a nutshell. If a celebrity sells themselves to read some funny ad-man lines - that's acceptable. If they're not paid, they're not selling anything - they're deemed untrustworthy, they've stepped out of line.
Of course to be sure of this thesis, we'd have to get Rhys and Keisha to switch places. What if he had advocated signing on to the 40% reduction in carbo emissions? Would John Key have come down so hard on him? Would Keisha have been "selling out" if she did a Whale Rider for 2 Degrees?

Either way you look at it, there is something very disturbing about what behaviour, what messages we will accept from who in our media-manufactured world. Advertising, marketing and public relations are principally to blame. What they do is corrupt one of the essential pillars of our market society: information.
Not only that, but we are conditioned to accepting certain modes of transmission of information as feeling more acceptable, more true, more trustworthy than others - even though if you step back and look at the facts you can see which story has more weight.

But how often do we - step back, I mean? How far do we have to step back to see the walls that are built because we believe in them?

This is the society our media and advertising standards are making. This is the society we have.

Mists of Truth and Narrative and Power

The Standard points to our greatest dislike of the blogging scene, and the media in general. In changing his position just because it is National delivering the policy on the Electoral Finance Act, David Farrar of Kiwiblog is showing his adherence to battlelines, to a party over principles. To power.

This can be seen across the blogosphere now that National are in power, with hypocritical crowing from Right-wing bloggers - Cactus Kate, Roarprawn - knowing that they personally benefit from the big business mentality of the National-Act - screw democracy, screw any ambition other than money-making - and they screw up their own avowed principles (such as Roarprawn's "hate on political corruption"). This is sad. And you won't see it here, because no NZ party is really moving in a direction Fantail would like to see. The parties don't understand the question our country is facing - because we haven't asked it of them properly.

What is that question, you ask? It's a good question. It's simple, but obscure. I'll tell ya later. And you won't hear the media asking it, not on our behalf because they lack the self-awarness and clarity to see how they hinder democracy, instead of aiding it. They are arbiters and gatekeepers, like the three monkeys. Deaf. Dumb. Blind.

As with John Key's follow-up performance after Letterman. I can't find a mainstream report on it, but apparently he walked out on Iranian president Ahmedinajad's speech to the UN - following the coat-tails of the uS and UK, like a good pup.

This is a worrying sign. He personally could benefit greatly from listening to the leaders of countries 20 times our size, facing threats that make "Oh, KiwiRail is losing money" look absolutely infantile. His political pedigree isn't impressive, but the answer is not to play "follow the leader". Stay in your seat. Listen. Learn. That's what you're there for. Ask questions. Think for yourself - don't just follow the cool kids around.

I wonder what he thought of the Swiss leader's comments regarding the G20 elite, who met alongside the General Assembly in Pittsburgh. That is, the biggest national economies in the world, and those who are too strategically important to ignore and aren't upstarts that the US wants to bomb back into their place. We're never going to make either hit list, so we should listen to Switzerland's concern that the UN, much less the General Assembly (the most democratic body in the world) is being made ever more redundant by these swaggering elites.

It would be nice if we could stop the rot hang on to some principles - show some real ambition - rather than always spreading our legs for the money.

Link to UN General Debate

Capitulations and Commiserations

The All Blacks' 33-6 victory over the Wallabies was an interesting affair; but not as interesting as all the hot air that escaped afterwards.

Spiro Zavos notes on the Roar that the crowd leaving the stadium were surprisingly muted, and actually that's how I felt watching it. I saw a lot of toil and endeavour from the All Blacks - and an improvement, with the error count down, a good loose trio and, at last, CORY JANE on the field. But Nonu's try was a relief, and Rokocoko's just a little mouthwash after swallowing an awful home season where we'd have much rather seen this performance in the first game than the last.

It was only once I read my first NZ-based news item that I realised that I had apparently been watching a game of majesty and excellence from the All Blacks.

Indeed, it was a story repeated throughout the press here, and I was reminded yet again that many of these papers and writers RELY on our love of rugby to cash their paychecks. The after match reports are always so uncritical of obvious game-turning decision by referees these days, of the blindness to offside, forward passes, and the reporting of penalty counts are a thing of the past... It's not in the media's interest to get too down on their cash-cow.

And so, this win has been blown out of all proportions. You want to see a real NZ-AUS thrashing? Try 43-6 in the wet at Athletic Park in 1996. Saturday's All Blacks were strong, but the Wallabies limp - as they have always been when they are favoured in the professional era. Other than the "John Eales" era of influence, 1998-2002, the Wallabies struggle after posting a big win because it places expectations on them. They then kick and fight like underdogs, occasionally dragging the bigger dog down - South Africa this year. That was the damage they caused at the 2003 World Cup, and it will be their biggest threat at the next.

In the performances of Cory Jane and Adam Thomson, the All Black coaches have, I hope, learned a small lesson in picking the best players. But I doubt it, because Rokocoko was still there for no good reason, and their every comment and decision smacks of pride and "we know best". This earned them a serve this week in the media, which sold papers at Steve Hansen's expense, but now the press are leading the up-tick in our rugby zeitgeist.

There's money to be made from our rugby smiles. There should be some research into how many homes buy Sky just so they can watch our national game.

*

In other sport:
A tear for the Wellington Phoenix having to settle for a draw after a late goal by the North Queensland Fury in the A-League.

Sighs for the Silver Ferns, who again let the Australian netballers run out leads before hauling them back in - to lose by 1.

Shake of the head for the Wellington Lions, who lost to Waikato, and can barely score a try this year. It seems they were just way ahead of the pack in 08; all the other teams have caught up.

A yawn for the Black Cap Cricketers who are still overpaid, over-exposed and under-perform, despite a warm-up win against India.