Waitangi Day has once again rolled past in New Zealand, and once again there were protests and controversy and what not...
All these things have once again renewed Peter Dunn's call to rename it "New Zealand Day" - this time creating a separate day, instead of just renaming it.
Of course, that'll work! Instead of addressing the underlying racial tensions, and trying to make a move towards an understanding of our history and creating a country in which our native population are able to participate on an equal footing, let's just sweep that all under the carpet by renaming the day, taking the Maoriness out of it.
You don't fix the fundamental racial issues facing a nation by giving the national day a European name so whitey can pretend that everything's alright. Fixing things is difficult, it takes time and it forces us to look in the mirror and admit to ourselves that, maybe, we could try being a little less racist.
Showing posts with label New Zealand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Zealand. Show all posts
07 February, 2011
26 January, 2011
Let's get some privatisation up in this place!
So, John Key has announced that he's going to sell off some state assets, namely our energy companies, to cover some of this debt we seem to enjoy so much. There's a couple of things I don't like about this, and they cover both practical and ideological fronts.
Key, in his State of the Nation speech, said that National would sell off 49% of the state-owned energy companies to pay for rising national debt, retaining controlling interest for the government.
On the practical side, I understand that energy companies earned the government around $700 million last year. This goes into the state coffers where it's used to help pay for things like healthcare and education. If the government sells off half of the shares in the companies, that would slash the revenue that the government can take. That will mean we'd have to find more money from other sources to pay for important things that we're already not providing enough funding for.
Selling the assets would mean a one off cash boost to the government, but after a few years, the reduced income would negate that.
We were in debt a couple of years ago, and John Key cut tax for the rich, claiming it would help boost the economy, apparently still believing that the trickle down theory actually has merit. That, or he was lying through his insidious smile. Either way, fit for leadership that does not one make.
Yoda-esque sentences aside, the cuts were supposed to be balanced out by the increase in GST. It's incredibly naïve to think that a tax on consumption would work in a time when consumption is low.
So we ended up in more debt, of Key and Bill English's construction, which they claim will be solved with a quick state-asset sale.
On the ideological side of my argument, energy companies are part of our core infrastructure. They belong to all of us. Key said that "mum and dad" investors (I abhor that term on so many levels) would be better off if they could buy shares in the companies. When CLive pointed out that "mum and dad" already own shares with them being state owned (as do the rest of us non "mum and dad"s), Key merrily said, "Yes, and now thay can buy their own shares in it! ^_^" *
"Mum and dad" investors are not going to be better off - wealthy, private interests are. Foreign investors are going to go for their slice of the pie too (even though they have to stand at the back of the queue, NZ investors would be given first dibs).
Electricity companies are fundamentally important to the running of our nation. Power generation should belong to all the people and not be subjected to the whims of private owners. Just because the government holds controlling interest, giving them the power of veto in certain decisions, it doesn't mean that the other 49% don't have any sway. They have a lot of sway.
I shouldn't keep saying that these companies are owned by the government, that makes people miss the point. These companies are owned by us - the citizens of New Zealand. We should be the ones who control them. A small group of politicians should keep their grubby paws off them.
* I'm paraphrasing a little.
Key, in his State of the Nation speech, said that National would sell off 49% of the state-owned energy companies to pay for rising national debt, retaining controlling interest for the government.
On the practical side, I understand that energy companies earned the government around $700 million last year. This goes into the state coffers where it's used to help pay for things like healthcare and education. If the government sells off half of the shares in the companies, that would slash the revenue that the government can take. That will mean we'd have to find more money from other sources to pay for important things that we're already not providing enough funding for.
Selling the assets would mean a one off cash boost to the government, but after a few years, the reduced income would negate that.
We were in debt a couple of years ago, and John Key cut tax for the rich, claiming it would help boost the economy, apparently still believing that the trickle down theory actually has merit. That, or he was lying through his insidious smile. Either way, fit for leadership that does not one make.
Yoda-esque sentences aside, the cuts were supposed to be balanced out by the increase in GST. It's incredibly naïve to think that a tax on consumption would work in a time when consumption is low.
So we ended up in more debt, of Key and Bill English's construction, which they claim will be solved with a quick state-asset sale.
On the ideological side of my argument, energy companies are part of our core infrastructure. They belong to all of us. Key said that "mum and dad" investors (I abhor that term on so many levels) would be better off if they could buy shares in the companies. When CLive pointed out that "mum and dad" already own shares with them being state owned (as do the rest of us non "mum and dad"s), Key merrily said, "Yes, and now thay can buy their own shares in it! ^_^" *
"Mum and dad" investors are not going to be better off - wealthy, private interests are. Foreign investors are going to go for their slice of the pie too (even though they have to stand at the back of the queue, NZ investors would be given first dibs).
Electricity companies are fundamentally important to the running of our nation. Power generation should belong to all the people and not be subjected to the whims of private owners. Just because the government holds controlling interest, giving them the power of veto in certain decisions, it doesn't mean that the other 49% don't have any sway. They have a lot of sway.
I shouldn't keep saying that these companies are owned by the government, that makes people miss the point. These companies are owned by us - the citizens of New Zealand. We should be the ones who control them. A small group of politicians should keep their grubby paws off them.
* I'm paraphrasing a little.
08 October, 2010
Do I give more face time to Paul Henry?
The ship is fast sailing on this one, but the media keep plugging it, so I will too.
[Warning: This post gets cynical quite quickly]
What I find interesting (though not at all surprising) about the whole Paul Henry thing, is the difference in reporting between the two networks. TVNZ (understandably) is only giving a minimal amount of information, focusing on his offending question surrounding whether Anand Satyanand was "even a New Zealander," and only focused on his joking about Sheila Dikshit's name once the controversy hit India. TV3, by contrast, played a sort of Paul Henry mega-mix whereby he laughed at a lady moustache and his mockery of Susan Boyle.
Both networks conspicuously leave out his comment that homosexuals are "unnatural."
There are two things that annoy me about this whole Henry debacle. First is the fact that people are defending him - some people joining ‘boycott TVNZ until Paul Henry returns’ groups on Facebook. They act (seemingly echoing TVNZ's sentiment) that it was a one-off incident, and wasn't really all that bad. The reason people are pissed off and want his blood, is because it's the latest in a long line of bigoted, arsehole statements that the veteran broadcaster has made - and, being racial, it's the one that's inflamed us all the most. He's not saying “what we're all thinking but afraid to say” (granted, TVNZ later retracted this statement). Most New Zealanders are not bigoted arseholes. Tough I would agree with the sentiment that we'd like to be able to “tell it like it is,” that has more to do with New Zealanders reprehension with complaining rather than any introverted intolerance.
Henry is a bigot and giving him free reign on Breakfast has exacerbated his bigotry. The argument that he's a good broadcaster and that he's fantastic at debating politicians, et al, does not warrant letting his offensive remarks slide.
The second thing that annoyed me about the whole thing is that TV3 interviewed radio shock-jocks John Tamihere and Willie Jackson. The pair admonished Henry's offensiveness, rightly pointing out that a government-owned network shouldn't employ openly racist presenters, while ignoring the hypocrisy of them making those comments. Jackson and (especially) Tamihere have received their fair share of complaints about their own offensive statements, but they defend their right to do it because their radio programme is privately owned, as if that makes it all OK.
Finally, I should pay lip service to the fact that many people are saying that we shouldn't be flogging this piece of non-news. While the media do have a tendency of over pushing pointless “news” items, I think people are more worried about giving Henry's words an ersatz legitimacy by talking about it.
I disagree, and think that we should be talking about it. The fact that he said it, and the fact that many people are rushing to his defense, shows that New Zealand is still a quietly bigoted country. While we have nothing of the sort we see proudly trumpeted from the parapets across America, we're not the paragon of tolerance and freedom that we tell ourselves we are. Racism, heterosexism, misogyny and other forms of discrimination all still exist in our society.
But does that mean that we need to keep harping on Paul Henry? He may be a bit of a media pariah at the moment, but he's fast becoming a patsy for bigotry in New Zealand. In stead of keeping on him, we need to honestly look at ourselves in the mirror, and actually have a conversation with ourselves to finally deal with the conservative bigotry lurking beneath our liberal façade.
[UPDATE: Paul Henry has resigned, lol]
[Warning: This post gets cynical quite quickly]
What I find interesting (though not at all surprising) about the whole Paul Henry thing, is the difference in reporting between the two networks. TVNZ (understandably) is only giving a minimal amount of information, focusing on his offending question surrounding whether Anand Satyanand was "even a New Zealander," and only focused on his joking about Sheila Dikshit's name once the controversy hit India. TV3, by contrast, played a sort of Paul Henry mega-mix whereby he laughed at a lady moustache and his mockery of Susan Boyle.
Both networks conspicuously leave out his comment that homosexuals are "unnatural."
There are two things that annoy me about this whole Henry debacle. First is the fact that people are defending him - some people joining ‘boycott TVNZ until Paul Henry returns’ groups on Facebook. They act (seemingly echoing TVNZ's sentiment) that it was a one-off incident, and wasn't really all that bad. The reason people are pissed off and want his blood, is because it's the latest in a long line of bigoted, arsehole statements that the veteran broadcaster has made - and, being racial, it's the one that's inflamed us all the most. He's not saying “what we're all thinking but afraid to say” (granted, TVNZ later retracted this statement). Most New Zealanders are not bigoted arseholes. Tough I would agree with the sentiment that we'd like to be able to “tell it like it is,” that has more to do with New Zealanders reprehension with complaining rather than any introverted intolerance.
Henry is a bigot and giving him free reign on Breakfast has exacerbated his bigotry. The argument that he's a good broadcaster and that he's fantastic at debating politicians, et al, does not warrant letting his offensive remarks slide.
The second thing that annoyed me about the whole thing is that TV3 interviewed radio shock-jocks John Tamihere and Willie Jackson. The pair admonished Henry's offensiveness, rightly pointing out that a government-owned network shouldn't employ openly racist presenters, while ignoring the hypocrisy of them making those comments. Jackson and (especially) Tamihere have received their fair share of complaints about their own offensive statements, but they defend their right to do it because their radio programme is privately owned, as if that makes it all OK.
Finally, I should pay lip service to the fact that many people are saying that we shouldn't be flogging this piece of non-news. While the media do have a tendency of over pushing pointless “news” items, I think people are more worried about giving Henry's words an ersatz legitimacy by talking about it.
I disagree, and think that we should be talking about it. The fact that he said it, and the fact that many people are rushing to his defense, shows that New Zealand is still a quietly bigoted country. While we have nothing of the sort we see proudly trumpeted from the parapets across America, we're not the paragon of tolerance and freedom that we tell ourselves we are. Racism, heterosexism, misogyny and other forms of discrimination all still exist in our society.
But does that mean that we need to keep harping on Paul Henry? He may be a bit of a media pariah at the moment, but he's fast becoming a patsy for bigotry in New Zealand. In stead of keeping on him, we need to honestly look at ourselves in the mirror, and actually have a conversation with ourselves to finally deal with the conservative bigotry lurking beneath our liberal façade.
[UPDATE: Paul Henry has resigned, lol]
18 December, 2009
'Probably' No God?
So, the Atheist Bus Campaign has come to New Zealand. Once again, the promoters are being asked why the 'probably' is in the phrase.
While it would be nice - and the promoters all 'probably' believe so - to say "There is definitely no God," this runs into two issues. The first is that the 'probably' softens the blow to those not so keen on blasphemy. While I personally think that, regardless of what you believe, it is everyone's moral imperative to blaspheme - if only because we're told not to - blasphemy isn't everyone's cup of tea, so it's probably best to avoid it (even if you're only technically avoiding it).
However, given that people are going to be offended by these adverts anyway, this is a relatively minor reason.
The real reason for its existence, is that to exclude the 'probably' would be to lose scientific integrity. The question of God's existence is one that is insoluble. There is no way that you can prove that He exists, but neither can you prove a negative. This might sound a little more agnostic than atheistic, but it's not - it's an appeal to the rigours of logic. An Agnostic Bus Campaign would read more like "There's no way of knowing if there is a God or not." It's more scientifically accurate, but less to the point. Agnostics might like it, but probably won't put it on a bus. (Well, after the success of the Atheist campaign, they might...)
The atheist, like the agnostic, prefers to use the term 'probably,' but unlike the agnostic makes a point of saying that for all intents and purposes, we might as well say there is no God - for the same reason that we say that there are no faeries, no zombies, no unicorns, vampires, Thor, Quezacotl, Wotan, Zeus, Reptiods or any other mythological things. Strictly speaking, we must be agnostic to all these things (for you can never prove they don't exist), but we don't. I'm as much an aunicornist as the next person. But, ask a scientist (when they are in scientist mode, that is - not when on their coffee break) and they will say "there are probably no vampires," but that doesn't mean we need to start funding vampire hunters.
Of course, that's just my opinion. The great thing about Atheism is that every individual atheist is welcome to make their own minds up about what the word means to them and how to interpret it. I personally feel that agnosticism is a weak form of atheism and doesn't really say what you believe while tempering the wrath of the religious (in some places in the world, this is an important thing to do). But Michael Shermer thinks otherwise, as he pointed out in his book How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science. He proudly uses the term 'agnostic' and he's entirely at liberty to disagree with me. That's why I love the English language - it's so vague and malleable (many people see this as a hindrance, but I don't).
So that little three syllable word continues to cause a bit of discussion, but that is the whole point in the campaign - to open discussion about the nature of the question of God's existence and how we let that question rule our lives. We mustn't hide our ignorance behind the veiled charge of 'blasphemy.'
While it would be nice - and the promoters all 'probably' believe so - to say "There is definitely no God," this runs into two issues. The first is that the 'probably' softens the blow to those not so keen on blasphemy. While I personally think that, regardless of what you believe, it is everyone's moral imperative to blaspheme - if only because we're told not to - blasphemy isn't everyone's cup of tea, so it's probably best to avoid it (even if you're only technically avoiding it).
However, given that people are going to be offended by these adverts anyway, this is a relatively minor reason.
The real reason for its existence, is that to exclude the 'probably' would be to lose scientific integrity. The question of God's existence is one that is insoluble. There is no way that you can prove that He exists, but neither can you prove a negative. This might sound a little more agnostic than atheistic, but it's not - it's an appeal to the rigours of logic. An Agnostic Bus Campaign would read more like "There's no way of knowing if there is a God or not." It's more scientifically accurate, but less to the point. Agnostics might like it, but probably won't put it on a bus. (Well, after the success of the Atheist campaign, they might...)
The atheist, like the agnostic, prefers to use the term 'probably,' but unlike the agnostic makes a point of saying that for all intents and purposes, we might as well say there is no God - for the same reason that we say that there are no faeries, no zombies, no unicorns, vampires, Thor, Quezacotl, Wotan, Zeus, Reptiods or any other mythological things. Strictly speaking, we must be agnostic to all these things (for you can never prove they don't exist), but we don't. I'm as much an aunicornist as the next person. But, ask a scientist (when they are in scientist mode, that is - not when on their coffee break) and they will say "there are probably no vampires," but that doesn't mean we need to start funding vampire hunters.
Of course, that's just my opinion. The great thing about Atheism is that every individual atheist is welcome to make their own minds up about what the word means to them and how to interpret it. I personally feel that agnosticism is a weak form of atheism and doesn't really say what you believe while tempering the wrath of the religious (in some places in the world, this is an important thing to do). But Michael Shermer thinks otherwise, as he pointed out in his book How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science. He proudly uses the term 'agnostic' and he's entirely at liberty to disagree with me. That's why I love the English language - it's so vague and malleable (many people see this as a hindrance, but I don't).
So that little three syllable word continues to cause a bit of discussion, but that is the whole point in the campaign - to open discussion about the nature of the question of God's existence and how we let that question rule our lives. We mustn't hide our ignorance behind the veiled charge of 'blasphemy.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)