It's very easy to get caught up in the celebration upon the news of Maggie Thatcher's death.
Maggie Thatcher was a despicable person who caused so much destruction during her time in power. (No need for a recap here it would take too long!)
Still I have to say that in some (very small) ways I am sad that she is dead. Here's why:
For myself personally, her death means nothing to me. Thousands of people die each day.
But it makes me sad that Maggie Thatcher did all of the terrible things she did and never regretted it. I have a belief that everyone has 'good' in them, everyone has the ability to change who they are. To say that Maggie Thatcher was a monster who deserved to die is to say that the career criminal deserves to be locked up for life because they are never going to change. If you've ever met someone who has changed their life around then you will know that's not true.
It makes me sad because Maggie Thatcher has died as a hero to those who believed in the things she did. Her death serves no useful purpose.
And I am sad for Maggie Thatcher's family. Really I am. For most, they have lost a dear relative, which is a hard thing for anyone. To say otherwise is to have a lack of human emotion. It's a lack of emotion and understanding that leads people like Maggie Thatcher to do the terrible things they do. It's also possible that some of her family were estranged from her? They now have to live with the knowledge that she never changed and they will forever be tarnished by her actions. Lastly I feel sorry for her children. They have been brought up with her and her husbands ideals of privilege and power and it shows. The cycle will likely continue with their children, and that is sad.
None of this means that I have to pay my respects by saying nice things, or refraining from talking about the terrible things that she did. Or from joining in with the jokes. Or from saying that people shouldn't celebrate. Death is a time for reflection. In this case it's important to reflect on the terible things Thatcher and others of her ilk did. A time to educate those younger than us who don't know, so we can fight for a better future. I've read some good points about celebrating the idea that we survived her attempt to crush all dissent. That's true, but at the same time Thatcher's death to me doesn't signify anything except that the struggle against neoliberalism is a very long one. It's far bigger than individuals. It was never just Thatcher and there are plenty more who have taken her place. When I hear about the death of neoliberalism, then I'll really be celebrating.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Lefty Battles and the Dark Side of the Force
Lefty's are a funny bunch, sometimes it seems like more time is spent arguing amongst each other than fighting the real enemy. This is especially so for social media, like Facebook, where the lack of 'in person' conversation brings a whole new set of problems. If we are going to finally have some true left wing solidarity then we need to re-examine our behaviour toward each other. What better way to do that than through the pop culture lens of Star Wars.
There are 6 stages you will encounter and each one can be identified with a different episode of Star Wars. The aim, of course, is to only engage in episodse IV, V and VI. It's when we lead ourselves to believe that there is anything to gain from the existence of episodes I, II and III that we are doomed.
I have chosen a recent Facebook lefty battle to illustrate the power of the force. Come with me now as we enter the dark side.
All episodes start the same. Text appears on the screen providing background for the upcoming struggle. In this case the text reads (cue music):
Episode IV: A New Hope
This is where someone points out an issue they have with the text in a way that says "hey friend, not sure about that point. Can you clarify?" Or "Hey friend, I don't know if that's necessarily true, what about this point?". Basically working on the assumption that the person they are speaking too (being a lefty) is well intentioned until they prove you otherwise. In this case Episode 1 is neatly summed up as follows:
There are 6 stages you will encounter and each one can be identified with a different episode of Star Wars. The aim, of course, is to only engage in episodse IV, V and VI. It's when we lead ourselves to believe that there is anything to gain from the existence of episodes I, II and III that we are doomed.
I have chosen a recent Facebook lefty battle to illustrate the power of the force. Come with me now as we enter the dark side.
All episodes start the same. Text appears on the screen providing background for the upcoming struggle. In this case the text reads (cue music):
If we're lucky (and in this case we are), we kick straight off in to episode IV
Episode IV: A New Hope
This is where someone points out an issue they have with the text in a way that says "hey friend, not sure about that point. Can you clarify?" Or "Hey friend, I don't know if that's necessarily true, what about this point?". Basically working on the assumption that the person they are speaking too (being a lefty) is well intentioned until they prove you otherwise. In this case Episode 1 is neatly summed up as follows:
J: Hey
G, is 'Young women are coerced out of their clothes and their
self-respect,' a line from the video, or is that you? Unsure exactly
what you're trying to get at there, but I think the concept of loss of
self-respect is maybe not the most useful here, as it reinforces the
kind of victim-blaming rhetoric that contributes to rape culture.
At this point we don't get to move straight on to Episode V because we've been immediately interrupted by Episode II.
Episode II: Attack of the Clones
The attack of the clones begins. Friends of the questioner see what their friend is posting and can't help but add a comment too, only in a much more unhelpful way and usually just a statement of their opinion:
Another clone appears.
Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Another clone, only this time more sinister, more opinionated and far more unhelpful. This person is often referred to as the phantom menace because they are often unknown to the person who is being questioned:
Note that in many cases at this stage the person being questioned may not have even responded. If not, then this is what's called a Jar Jar Binks moment.
Now comes the response. This will go one of two ways. If we are lucky we move in to Episode V, a worthy rival to Episode IV. The person being questioned has taken on board the question or criticism and either re-clarified admitting error or re-stated their position with more detail in a non-confrontational way. If we are unlucky its Episode III and the person being questioned has become defensive and belligerent or confused and belligerent. In this case the response is a mix of the former and the latter.
Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
G: I know this is a topic you feel strongly about, J, and I am really not looking to get into any kind of argument with you.
The intention in my comments was the *opposite* of victim-blaming. I was trying to point out that young women featured in the video (and many more besides) were disrobing, apparently to make themselves an object of pleasure for male onlookers (rather than out of any personal desire to be free of clothing).
And they were doing this in response to social pressure from verbally aggressive and disrespectful men, with impaired judgement due to intoxication.
So yes, I think this did amount to coercion, to act in ways they would not normally act, and show themselves less self-respect.
I guess the acid test would be, how would these women feel watching the video of themselves afterwards, with their friends and family.
As you will see from the post above, the person being questioned has not been overtly defensive at this stage, though there is some defensiveness already creeping in. The main problem is that the point of the original criticism has been missed, sending us in to the hellfire that is the prequel trilogy. A confused mess of statements that only serves to make everyone angry as they struggle to understand what the hell is going on and where everything went wrong. Usually at this stage the personal attacks will come thick and fast (He never could direct anyway, his ego got in the way, his writing has always been hopeless - Alec Guiness was ashamed of the lines he had to say, etc etc). Examples:
G: Ok, there has been some misinterpretation here. I will be generous, and accept that the misinterpretation has been inadvertent, rather than willful... if people continue to take an interpretation that I am blaming women for being sexually assaulted, or that women's bodies are something to be ashamed of and should be covered up, or whatever, then I will be increasingly left with the Impression of trolling. As a rule, I don't stay friends for long with repeat trolls
AC: Without reading the article or video, women who expose themselves like that have no self-respect - simple
S: Chris, cheerleading Grants sexism among othe things makes you look really pathetic
As you may have noticed, the introduction of any of the three prequels at any stage can be potentially disasterous, but all three is a death sentence. If we can avoid these pitfalls then it's possible to end up with a neat simple trilogy that everyone can enjoy. In this case I like to believe that this particular thread at least finally finished somewhere close to Episode VI.
Episode VI: Return of The Jedi
The finale. Both parties are victorious. The person being questioned, even if they have admitted being wrong, is awarded some redemption and can live in the comradely spirit world with the others. Its not everyones ideal and many will complain that it doesn't live up to its predecessors, but when the other option is the prequels...
G: Hey good people, I'm reflecting on all this material - even the hostile comments. My apologies to J for using the "troll" word. That was completely wrong and I am sorry.
At this point we don't get to move straight on to Episode V because we've been immediately interrupted by Episode II.
Episode II: Attack of the Clones
The attack of the clones begins. Friends of the questioner see what their friend is posting and can't help but add a comment too, only in a much more unhelpful way and usually just a statement of their opinion:
A: His
line (the video is actually a relatively decent piece about binge
drinking as our national sport). It also assumes that all young women
who this has happened to have lost their self-respect...some of them may
feel fine afterwards, some who have been harassed or assaulted may feel
angry rather than victim blaming. Whether one has a top or not doesn't
form a barometer for self-respect, so that's kinda slut-shaming too. Er,
hello there guy I don't know
Another clone appears.
Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Another clone, only this time more sinister, more opinionated and far more unhelpful. This person is often referred to as the phantom menace because they are often unknown to the person who is being questioned:
N: I
interpret the tone here as suggesting that you think women being
subject to acts of sexual coercion = a loss of respect (self respect
and, as implied by how you speak about them, your respect). Gross.
Note that in many cases at this stage the person being questioned may not have even responded. If not, then this is what's called a Jar Jar Binks moment.
Now comes the response. This will go one of two ways. If we are lucky we move in to Episode V, a worthy rival to Episode IV. The person being questioned has taken on board the question or criticism and either re-clarified admitting error or re-stated their position with more detail in a non-confrontational way. If we are unlucky its Episode III and the person being questioned has become defensive and belligerent or confused and belligerent. In this case the response is a mix of the former and the latter.
Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
G: I know this is a topic you feel strongly about, J, and I am really not looking to get into any kind of argument with you.
The intention in my comments was the *opposite* of victim-blaming. I was trying to point out that young women featured in the video (and many more besides) were disrobing, apparently to make themselves an object of pleasure for male onlookers (rather than out of any personal desire to be free of clothing).
And they were doing this in response to social pressure from verbally aggressive and disrespectful men, with impaired judgement due to intoxication.
So yes, I think this did amount to coercion, to act in ways they would not normally act, and show themselves less self-respect.
I guess the acid test would be, how would these women feel watching the video of themselves afterwards, with their friends and family.
As you will see from the post above, the person being questioned has not been overtly defensive at this stage, though there is some defensiveness already creeping in. The main problem is that the point of the original criticism has been missed, sending us in to the hellfire that is the prequel trilogy. A confused mess of statements that only serves to make everyone angry as they struggle to understand what the hell is going on and where everything went wrong. Usually at this stage the personal attacks will come thick and fast (He never could direct anyway, his ego got in the way, his writing has always been hopeless - Alec Guiness was ashamed of the lines he had to say, etc etc). Examples:
G: Ok, there has been some misinterpretation here. I will be generous, and accept that the misinterpretation has been inadvertent, rather than willful... if people continue to take an interpretation that I am blaming women for being sexually assaulted, or that women's bodies are something to be ashamed of and should be covered up, or whatever, then I will be increasingly left with the Impression of trolling. As a rule, I don't stay friends for long with repeat trolls
AC: Without reading the article or video, women who expose themselves like that have no self-respect - simple
S: Chris, cheerleading Grants sexism among othe things makes you look really pathetic
As you may have noticed, the introduction of any of the three prequels at any stage can be potentially disasterous, but all three is a death sentence. If we can avoid these pitfalls then it's possible to end up with a neat simple trilogy that everyone can enjoy. In this case I like to believe that this particular thread at least finally finished somewhere close to Episode VI.
Episode VI: Return of The Jedi
The finale. Both parties are victorious. The person being questioned, even if they have admitted being wrong, is awarded some redemption and can live in the comradely spirit world with the others. Its not everyones ideal and many will complain that it doesn't live up to its predecessors, but when the other option is the prequels...
G: Hey good people, I'm reflecting on all this material - even the hostile comments. My apologies to J for using the "troll" word. That was completely wrong and I am sorry.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Maths 101
Some simple math.
Here's a link to an article explaining that New Zealand has the highest unemployment in 18 years.
Here's a link to an article explaining that there are now 12,000 fewer people on benefits due to welfare reform.
Hmmm something doesn't add up...
But here's a link to the National Party homepage where it states "Getting people off welfare and into work means a better life, better opportunities, and a brighter future for people and their families...Welfare will always be there to support those in genuine need but we are no longer going to hand over benefits and leave people to their own devices. Instead we are taking an active, work-based approach because we have greater aspirations for New Zealanders and their children, achieved through work, not welfare".
And here's a link to an adult education course in beginners maths, which should be mandatory for every National Party MP before they are allowed to make any further 'reforms'.
Oh and here's an article from the beginning of last year where opposition parties criticise the welfare reforms and say that all it will do is push people off benefits with no jobs to go in to. But don't worry, Paula Bennet said "We're not cutting benefits, we're trying to move people ahead and we're not being punitive".
In all seriousness though, there are now thousands more people without a job and without a benefit, somewhere in no mans land. How are they surviving? Whos's helping them? Stop asking silly questions, Paula Bennet has more good news for you, "I think we'll continue to see benefit figures come down as we change the whole way we work with people". Thanks Paula, now about that maths course...
Here's a link to an article explaining that New Zealand has the highest unemployment in 18 years.
Here's a link to an article explaining that there are now 12,000 fewer people on benefits due to welfare reform.
Hmmm something doesn't add up...
But here's a link to the National Party homepage where it states "Getting people off welfare and into work means a better life, better opportunities, and a brighter future for people and their families...Welfare will always be there to support those in genuine need but we are no longer going to hand over benefits and leave people to their own devices. Instead we are taking an active, work-based approach because we have greater aspirations for New Zealanders and their children, achieved through work, not welfare".
And here's a link to an adult education course in beginners maths, which should be mandatory for every National Party MP before they are allowed to make any further 'reforms'.
Oh and here's an article from the beginning of last year where opposition parties criticise the welfare reforms and say that all it will do is push people off benefits with no jobs to go in to. But don't worry, Paula Bennet said "We're not cutting benefits, we're trying to move people ahead and we're not being punitive".
In all seriousness though, there are now thousands more people without a job and without a benefit, somewhere in no mans land. How are they surviving? Whos's helping them? Stop asking silly questions, Paula Bennet has more good news for you, "I think we'll continue to see benefit figures come down as we change the whole way we work with people". Thanks Paula, now about that maths course...
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Breaking News: John Key conversation leaked
A tape of the following conversation was leaked to the media at 4:19pm this afternoon. It appears to be Prime Minister John Key and his Public Relations manager, Sean Fitztastic, having a private discussion regarding Prime Minister's Key's latest media gaffe.
Sean Fitztastic: Oh god John what are you doing to me!
John Key: Oh mellow out Sean, you're so serious all the time
SF: 'Mellow out'! Is that what the kids are saying these days John?
JK: Well no actually its what we used to say in the 70's. Good point Sean, I'll have to ask my kids what they say these days. Probably something like "you gots ta chill gaybo" (snaps fingers)
SF: What the hell was that?
JK: Ummm...just a little something the kids do
SF: Don't ever do it again
JK: I think you're forgetting who the Prime Minister is here Sean
SF: No you're forgetting who the Prime Minister is John. How could you compare NZ's clean green image to a McDonald's ad
JK: They've got a great marketing campaign, they make millions.
SF: Not the point John!
JK: Its slick, the food always looks better on the ads, and they had that cool kid Justin Biebel singing (sings) 'ooh ooh I'm lovin it'
SF: (stares blankly)
JK: What?
SF: Don't ever do that again...And it was Justin Timberlake anyway
JK: Well anyway he sure can sing (sings and shakes hips) 'I'm bringing sexy back'
SF: (loud slapping sound followed by a small whimper) What the hell has gotten in to you recently!
JK: I'm an entertainer Sean, I've got an audience to think about. I perform for thousands of people each week you know
SF: John, we've been through this before. You are not an entertainer. You make speeches about policy. You are the Prime Minister
JK: That's right I'm the Prime Minister
SF: Umm John, did you really just poke your tongue out at me
JK: Maybe
SF: Don't ever do that again
JK: It's what the kids do
SF: Snap out of it John. You're not a kid, you're not cool, you're not hip, you're the fucking Prime Minister
JK: Now steady on a bit Sean
SF: Don't you remember when we were riding a wave of popularity? There was a time when you could do no wrong
JK: I can't do any wrong, what's changed?
SF: You've changed John...you've changed. Why did you make yourself Tourism Minister anyway? What do you know about tourism?
JK: Well I go on a lot of holidays
SF: Not in New Zealand you don't
JK: Well no, but I thought about my holiday house in Hawaii and I thought, 'I want to make New Zealand a place where I would buy another holiday home. I want New Zealand to be the 'New Hawaii'
SF: And you bought a new holiday home?
JK: Well no, let's get serious here Sean. New Zealand's never going to compare with Hawaii. We can't even keep our clean green image in tact
SF: Oh for fucks sake. John there was a time when I thought this gig was going to lead me to great things.
JK: Like PR for the President of the US?
SF: Beyonce's publicist
JK: Oh I like Beyonce, she know's how to sing... (sings) 'I'm a survivor'. She's quite good looking for a black lady
SF: This is what I mean John, you can't just say things like that.
JK: Like what
SF: Like that, 'good looking for a black lady'
JK: What I can't find women attractive now?
SF: Its just like your 'gay red top' comment John. You speak without thinking
JK: Oh you know the media, they're just like the Maori's, they make a mountain out of a molehill
SF: Excuse me?
JK: You know, like this selling assets business. Its what we're doing, everyone knows that we don't have to obey the Treaty, lets just get on with it. Why turn it in to such a big deal.
SF: You know I'm Maori John?
JK: Well yeah, but you're not like one of them
SF: One of them?
JK: Well you know what I mean
SF: Ok listen John, if you want to save the next election...
JK: Well I'm not so worried about that, I mean six years is quite a long time already. I've got other plans you know
SF: Let me re-phrase then. John if you want to save your image...
JK: Oh my image, isn't it great. I had 20 new likes on Facebook this week
SF...if you want to save your image you're going to have to start doing two key things
JK: he he he
SF: What?
JK: You said 'Key'...like two 'Key' things...and my name is Key...he he he
SF: Oh forget it, I quit.
See also 'Meanwhile in the Fairfax Editor's Office - Part Two'
Sean Fitztastic: Oh god John what are you doing to me!
John Key: Oh mellow out Sean, you're so serious all the time
SF: 'Mellow out'! Is that what the kids are saying these days John?
JK: Well no actually its what we used to say in the 70's. Good point Sean, I'll have to ask my kids what they say these days. Probably something like "you gots ta chill gaybo" (snaps fingers)
SF: What the hell was that?
JK: Ummm...just a little something the kids do
SF: Don't ever do it again
JK: I think you're forgetting who the Prime Minister is here Sean
SF: No you're forgetting who the Prime Minister is John. How could you compare NZ's clean green image to a McDonald's ad
JK: They've got a great marketing campaign, they make millions.
SF: Not the point John!
JK: Its slick, the food always looks better on the ads, and they had that cool kid Justin Biebel singing (sings) 'ooh ooh I'm lovin it'
SF: (stares blankly)
JK: What?
SF: Don't ever do that again...And it was Justin Timberlake anyway
JK: Well anyway he sure can sing (sings and shakes hips) 'I'm bringing sexy back'
SF: (loud slapping sound followed by a small whimper) What the hell has gotten in to you recently!
JK: I'm an entertainer Sean, I've got an audience to think about. I perform for thousands of people each week you know
SF: John, we've been through this before. You are not an entertainer. You make speeches about policy. You are the Prime Minister
JK: That's right I'm the Prime Minister
SF: Umm John, did you really just poke your tongue out at me
JK: Maybe
SF: Don't ever do that again
JK: It's what the kids do
SF: Snap out of it John. You're not a kid, you're not cool, you're not hip, you're the fucking Prime Minister
JK: Now steady on a bit Sean
SF: Don't you remember when we were riding a wave of popularity? There was a time when you could do no wrong
JK: I can't do any wrong, what's changed?
SF: You've changed John...you've changed. Why did you make yourself Tourism Minister anyway? What do you know about tourism?
JK: Well I go on a lot of holidays
SF: Not in New Zealand you don't
JK: Well no, but I thought about my holiday house in Hawaii and I thought, 'I want to make New Zealand a place where I would buy another holiday home. I want New Zealand to be the 'New Hawaii'
SF: And you bought a new holiday home?
JK: Well no, let's get serious here Sean. New Zealand's never going to compare with Hawaii. We can't even keep our clean green image in tact
SF: Oh for fucks sake. John there was a time when I thought this gig was going to lead me to great things.
JK: Like PR for the President of the US?
SF: Beyonce's publicist
JK: Oh I like Beyonce, she know's how to sing... (sings) 'I'm a survivor'. She's quite good looking for a black lady
SF: This is what I mean John, you can't just say things like that.
JK: Like what
SF: Like that, 'good looking for a black lady'
JK: What I can't find women attractive now?
SF: Its just like your 'gay red top' comment John. You speak without thinking
JK: Oh you know the media, they're just like the Maori's, they make a mountain out of a molehill
SF: Excuse me?
JK: You know, like this selling assets business. Its what we're doing, everyone knows that we don't have to obey the Treaty, lets just get on with it. Why turn it in to such a big deal.
SF: You know I'm Maori John?
JK: Well yeah, but you're not like one of them
SF: One of them?
JK: Well you know what I mean
SF: Ok listen John, if you want to save the next election...
JK: Well I'm not so worried about that, I mean six years is quite a long time already. I've got other plans you know
SF: Let me re-phrase then. John if you want to save your image...
JK: Oh my image, isn't it great. I had 20 new likes on Facebook this week
SF...if you want to save your image you're going to have to start doing two key things
JK: he he he
SF: What?
JK: You said 'Key'...like two 'Key' things...and my name is Key...he he he
SF: Oh forget it, I quit.
See also 'Meanwhile in the Fairfax Editor's Office - Part Two'
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Meanwhile in the Fairfax Editor's Office...Part Two
EDITOR: What's this story about John Key wearing a gay red shirt? Why are we printing this crap?
SUB EDITOR: You told us you wanted more stories about John Key sir
ED: Not this kind of story.
SUB ED: Umm...
ED: The kind people want to read! Dammit do I have to do all the thinking around here
SUB ED: It seems pretty popular...
ED: Something interesting dammit...like his mansion...I've been there you know, beautiful place, the toilets! My god you've never shat in such luxury. And the windows! Triple glazed you know
SUB ED:Umm sure...We've already run plenty of those though sir
ED: Well we need some balance dammit, we can't just run negative stories without a balance
SUB ED: I think this might be the first negative story we've ever run on John Key sir...
ED: What's the big deal anyway? He said he just meant weird
SUB ED: I think that's the point sir, he's saying that gay corresponds with weird
ED:
SUB ED: Like saying that if you are gay you are weird...
ED:
ED: You've lost me
SUB ED: He's saying...
ED: Did I ever tell you about the time I had to interview that chap the kids love. What's his name... Charlie Manson?
SUB ED: Umm...Marilyn Manson?
ED: Sure, girly name of course. You try and tell me that pansy isn't weird
SUB ED: But...he's not gay sir
ED: Well a fag then.
SUB ED:
ED: Queer...fruity...I don't know, what's the bloody 'PC' word these days
SUB ED: Gay sir
ED: That's what I said the first time dammit
SUB ED: Yes but he's not gay
ED: Of course he's not gay, he's the Prime Minister of our country for Pete's sake. So he wore a weird red shirt one time, let's not make a big deal out of this
SUB ED: Of course sir. So shall we run a puff piece like the Herald did then?
ED: A what? You know this newspaper doesn't do 'puff' pieces. I want real journalism
SUB ED: We haven't run a story about his holiday home in Hawaii for a while...
ED: Perfect. Oh and do a follow up to that dancing ponies story. Let's cash in on the whole 'gay' thing while its hot
Meanwhile in the Fairfax Editor's Office...Part One
SUB EDITOR: You told us you wanted more stories about John Key sir
ED: Not this kind of story.
SUB ED: Umm...
ED: The kind people want to read! Dammit do I have to do all the thinking around here
SUB ED: It seems pretty popular...
ED: Something interesting dammit...like his mansion...I've been there you know, beautiful place, the toilets! My god you've never shat in such luxury. And the windows! Triple glazed you know
SUB ED:Umm sure...We've already run plenty of those though sir
ED: Well we need some balance dammit, we can't just run negative stories without a balance
SUB ED: I think this might be the first negative story we've ever run on John Key sir...
ED: What's the big deal anyway? He said he just meant weird
SUB ED: I think that's the point sir, he's saying that gay corresponds with weird
ED:
SUB ED: Like saying that if you are gay you are weird...
ED:
ED: You've lost me
SUB ED: He's saying...
ED: Did I ever tell you about the time I had to interview that chap the kids love. What's his name... Charlie Manson?
SUB ED: Umm...Marilyn Manson?
ED: Sure, girly name of course. You try and tell me that pansy isn't weird
SUB ED: But...he's not gay sir
ED: Well a fag then.
SUB ED:
ED: Queer...fruity...I don't know, what's the bloody 'PC' word these days
SUB ED: Gay sir
ED: That's what I said the first time dammit
SUB ED: Yes but he's not gay
ED: Of course he's not gay, he's the Prime Minister of our country for Pete's sake. So he wore a weird red shirt one time, let's not make a big deal out of this
SUB ED: Of course sir. So shall we run a puff piece like the Herald did then?
ED: A what? You know this newspaper doesn't do 'puff' pieces. I want real journalism
SUB ED: We haven't run a story about his holiday home in Hawaii for a while...
ED: Perfect. Oh and do a follow up to that dancing ponies story. Let's cash in on the whole 'gay' thing while its hot
Meanwhile in the Fairfax Editor's Office...Part One
Thursday, September 20, 2012
The Moon orbiting Planet Key
Recently Prime Minister John Key was kind enough to reveal what life on 'Planet Key' would be like. "Nirvana" was the answer apparantly. Everyone would be rich, there would be lots of golf courses, no work, plenty of holidays. Sounds like bliss.
However, Key forgot to mention the Moon that orbits his planet. This is a dirty place, full of poor people. There is crime, poverty, inequality, homelessness. On Planet Key's Moon, solo mothers are punished, invalids are forced to work, hundreds of thousands of people work for poverty wages. There is homelessness and despair.
Sometimes the people on Planet Key's Moon are allowed to visit Planet Key, but only to work for the inhabitants of the planet. Then after work they are escorted off the Planet to their cramped Moon, where they try to survive, constantly struggling to pay the bills and feed the kids.
Sometimes the inhabitants of Planet Key are so busy playing golf and taking holidays, that they forget there even is a Moon, after all it remains out of sight most of the time. But on those nights when the full moon rises, its hard to ignore. So on Planet Key, where it is "beautifully governed", those doing the governing sit around and come up with policies to try and ensure that Planet Key doesn't become overpopulated. They cut student allowances and loans so that Moon inhabitants can't study for higher education. They take away Union rights so that Moon inhabitants can't earn living wages. They build more prisons and lock up people for longer so that Moon inhabitants stay where they should belong.
Planet Key already exists. Planet Key is places like Helensville and Epsom. Places where the mega-rich can hide away from the rest of society and pretend there are no problems. But living in paradise isn't easy, there's always the problem of reality getting too close for comfort. Luckily we have people like John Key to remind us all that there is no need for reality when you already live in your own fantasy.
However, Key forgot to mention the Moon that orbits his planet. This is a dirty place, full of poor people. There is crime, poverty, inequality, homelessness. On Planet Key's Moon, solo mothers are punished, invalids are forced to work, hundreds of thousands of people work for poverty wages. There is homelessness and despair.
Sometimes the people on Planet Key's Moon are allowed to visit Planet Key, but only to work for the inhabitants of the planet. Then after work they are escorted off the Planet to their cramped Moon, where they try to survive, constantly struggling to pay the bills and feed the kids.
Sometimes the inhabitants of Planet Key are so busy playing golf and taking holidays, that they forget there even is a Moon, after all it remains out of sight most of the time. But on those nights when the full moon rises, its hard to ignore. So on Planet Key, where it is "beautifully governed", those doing the governing sit around and come up with policies to try and ensure that Planet Key doesn't become overpopulated. They cut student allowances and loans so that Moon inhabitants can't study for higher education. They take away Union rights so that Moon inhabitants can't earn living wages. They build more prisons and lock up people for longer so that Moon inhabitants stay where they should belong.
Planet Key already exists. Planet Key is places like Helensville and Epsom. Places where the mega-rich can hide away from the rest of society and pretend there are no problems. But living in paradise isn't easy, there's always the problem of reality getting too close for comfort. Luckily we have people like John Key to remind us all that there is no need for reality when you already live in your own fantasy.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Trillions of dollars for lifetime of corporate tax cuts - Report
By Packer Murdoch
Sep 13 2012
The Ministry of Social Development has released a report showing that all companies who now pay 28% tax, down from 33% in 2008, will cost hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue if they remain on the lower tax rate for the rest of their lives.
This is the first time a Government has forecast how much it will cost if a group of current companies get tax cuts for life.
In September last year Cabinet agreed to fund the $1 million research carried out by Australian company Fry Taylor Consulting Actuaries. In Parliament's question time, Prime Minister John Key was asked why a million dollars was spent on research which seemed nonsensical. He replied "This is valuable research giving insight in to the nature of corporate welfare dependancy. The company is owned by a good friend of mine so I knew they would do a good job".
The aim was to use the valuations to better target benefit reforms and classify groups who are the most benefit dependent, which now appeared to be corporations.
The Fry Taylor report finds companies who also get a 15% tax rebate for research and development have the highest individual lifetime cost. If other tax cuts, like those given to overseas film productions were taken in to account, the figures became astronomical.
The Government would also spend $1.1m over four years on the Corporate tax board who will advise the ministry on how to best implement corporate benefit reform and report to the social development, finance and state service minister. Former Commerce Commission chairwoman Paula Rebstock will head the panel overseeing the ministry's decision to have an "investment approach" to corporate benefits in New Zealand. Mr Key, when asked about Ms Rebstock's appointment stated "well we've given her every other cushy job and she always comes up with outcomes which we seem to be in total agreement with. Its a positive relationship."
Social Development minister Paula Bennett said the figures showed that the Government needed to put more focus on corporations, rather than on people on the sickness or domestic purposes benefit, which made up only a fraction of the total costs of benefits.
She conceded there were many variables in the figures, but said the exercise would force Government to be more accountable.
"We've known the unemployment benefit has relatively low numbers and people move on and off it quite consistently, yet it's where we put most our punitive policies, most of our resource, most of our energy and most of our negative legislative changes."
Ms Bennet stated that the report showed there needed to be a dramatic shift to concentrate on the costs of corporate beneficiaries. "The other point to remember is that Corporations have essentially the same rights as people, but their life expectency is potentially infinite. So if we are looking at the true costs of giving corporate tax cuts over the the corporations lifetime, it actually extends in to the trillions of dollars."
Finance Minister Bill English agreed and said that the change in focus would come at the expense of those companies who now paid much lower tax rates - he was currently in negotiations for next year's Budget and expected to approve more funding for the welfare reforms on top of the $237 million this year.
- ANZP
(see the original article here)
Sep 13 2012
The Ministry of Social Development has released a report showing that all companies who now pay 28% tax, down from 33% in 2008, will cost hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue if they remain on the lower tax rate for the rest of their lives.
This is the first time a Government has forecast how much it will cost if a group of current companies get tax cuts for life.
In September last year Cabinet agreed to fund the $1 million research carried out by Australian company Fry Taylor Consulting Actuaries. In Parliament's question time, Prime Minister John Key was asked why a million dollars was spent on research which seemed nonsensical. He replied "This is valuable research giving insight in to the nature of corporate welfare dependancy. The company is owned by a good friend of mine so I knew they would do a good job".
The aim was to use the valuations to better target benefit reforms and classify groups who are the most benefit dependent, which now appeared to be corporations.
The Fry Taylor report finds companies who also get a 15% tax rebate for research and development have the highest individual lifetime cost. If other tax cuts, like those given to overseas film productions were taken in to account, the figures became astronomical.
The Government would also spend $1.1m over four years on the Corporate tax board who will advise the ministry on how to best implement corporate benefit reform and report to the social development, finance and state service minister. Former Commerce Commission chairwoman Paula Rebstock will head the panel overseeing the ministry's decision to have an "investment approach" to corporate benefits in New Zealand. Mr Key, when asked about Ms Rebstock's appointment stated "well we've given her every other cushy job and she always comes up with outcomes which we seem to be in total agreement with. Its a positive relationship."
Social Development minister Paula Bennett said the figures showed that the Government needed to put more focus on corporations, rather than on people on the sickness or domestic purposes benefit, which made up only a fraction of the total costs of benefits.
She conceded there were many variables in the figures, but said the exercise would force Government to be more accountable.
"We've known the unemployment benefit has relatively low numbers and people move on and off it quite consistently, yet it's where we put most our punitive policies, most of our resource, most of our energy and most of our negative legislative changes."
Ms Bennet stated that the report showed there needed to be a dramatic shift to concentrate on the costs of corporate beneficiaries. "The other point to remember is that Corporations have essentially the same rights as people, but their life expectency is potentially infinite. So if we are looking at the true costs of giving corporate tax cuts over the the corporations lifetime, it actually extends in to the trillions of dollars."
Finance Minister Bill English agreed and said that the change in focus would come at the expense of those companies who now paid much lower tax rates - he was currently in negotiations for next year's Budget and expected to approve more funding for the welfare reforms on top of the $237 million this year.
- ANZP
(see the original article here)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)