Open mike 03/01/2014

286 comments on “Open mike 03/01/2014 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. stargazer 1

   3 January 2014 at 7:26 am

   “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice… who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait.”

   a quote from martin luther king, which seems relevant to the discussions happening here over the last few days. so many of us are being told to just shut up, and wait for the “more important” issues to be sorted, because our issues aren’t considered important enough.

   and it really is more destructive when those on the left give that message, because they are the ones who supposedly understand marginalisation, who claim to be allies of the marginalised. but when even they tell us to sit back and be quiet while the “more important” stuff is being sorted, then what hope is there?

   a living wage is supposed to sort the gender pay gap or racial discrimination? a living wage only helps those who can get into full-time paid employment. i can give you any number of examples of people shut out of paid employment because of their religious beliefs, their skin colour, their ethnicity and their gender. i remember, a few years ago, being told not to apply for a job because they’d tried employing a woman the last time around & it hadn’t worked out. so if i can’t even get a job because of discriminatory practices in employment, then what does it matter to me whether we have a living wage or one that’s lower?

   and a universal income is not going to solve the problem of being beaten to death because of sexuality (i recall a couple of cases of this in nz in the last year). a person won’t be getting that income if they’re dead. climate change won’t be affecting me if i can’t face getting through the next week due to sexual abuse or bullying or any number of other experiences that affect the mental health of those suffering from marginalisation. we have one of the worst teen suicide rates in the world. are we supposed to treat that as tier 2 and keep letting our young people die, because climate change is so much more important?

   there are no tiers, no need for priority lists. and it’s just plain cruel to tell people to wait, and to dismiss their issues as boutique or “identity politics”.

   i’d like to salute all of the wonderful people who have put in the time and energy in the last few days, over the last few months, and for years, to fight against this framing that pits issues of economic marginalisation against other marginalisation. all of the points above have been made by you much more eloquently. you have shown incredible patience and tolerance, and a willingness to keep engaging even when opponents can’t be bothered to take you seriously. i know how exhausting and demoralising this work can be, and i want to make clear that there are plenty of people who are appreciating the fact that you have taken the trouble to speak up and to challenge people who want us to sit back and keep quiet. thank you.
   • AsleepWhileWalking 1.1

     3 January 2014 at 8:32 am

     Excellent post.

     “….examples of people shut out of paid employment because of their religious beliefs, their skin colour, their ethnicity and their gender.” And disability. Don’t forget that.

     The official line that blames disabled persons “work ethic” is an attempt to negate the very real barriers and discrimination disabled face when obtaining employment.

     How many disabled are suffering in bad work conditions because they know that it will be difficult to obtain any alternative?

     Some disabled also may not ever qualify for the IWTC due to their medical limitations.
     • karol 1.1.1

       3 January 2014 at 9:23 am

       Agreed AWW.

       When there was talk of focusing on the needs of the bigger proportion of people on low incomes, and to ignore the needs of minorities, I remembered the many years when I worked with children with “special needs” – various kinds of disabilities. When working in this education sector in London, I also became aware that the highest proportion of children designated “special needs” (ie with some disability), is the state system, came from low income/working class backgrounds, with Afro-Caribbean boys being over-represented.

       Any disability most often results in people being marginalised and stigmatised, adding to an already difficult situation. Low income +plus disability, makes life a real struggle.
   • just saying 1.2

     3 January 2014 at 8:48 am

     Just this.

     Thank you Stargazer.

     Here’s the irony CV, and I know you are still reading this, and to all your brothers in arms, because this is hardly an unusual situation –

     We could be allies. By stint of geography and coincidence. I thought that might be obvious, but due to my status as a mere woman, I suspect it’s more likely that you haven’t noticed. Your list of the three important issues (which you’ve never remotely stuck to yourself) – I care very much.

     We could be on the same team right here right now. Jesus wept CV, we actually are. But you’ve made it clear that you don’t want my kind on your team unless I’m prepared to STFU. I’m picking you assume that those of us living in the Margins “Boutique” will support you anyway, for the sake of the “big picture”. Despite being belittled by you.

     Well nah – I’d rather paint my toenails, because if this is the best we can do we really are going to hell in a handcart. Why bovver?
   • Zorr 1.3

     3 January 2014 at 9:10 am

     Same

     One of the funniest things that I just realized is that a large part of the argument for shelving “identity” politics until later is that we need to reform the economic system first in order to provide equality for all. It honestly feels like everyone is clamoring to be the person that gets to save NZ from the nasty disease of capitalism – despite the fact that in order for this change to occur they will need a very large base of support.

     So what do they do – tell everyone who could possibly be invested in the fight for greater equality that their issues are secondary until the adults finish talking.

     It’s days like these that highlight why I try not to invest too much in politics. The stupidity burns so much and it is depressing to see would-be-comrades undermine our position on the left more effectively than a Len Brown sex tape would.
   • karol 1.4

     3 January 2014 at 9:16 am

     Thanks, stargazer. So well put. It is important to be aware of and work against, any oppression of specific groups, that damages lives:

     there are no tiers, no need for priority lists.

     And this bit also is something that is worth highlighting:

     a living wage is supposed to sort the gender pay gap or racial discrimination? a living wage only helps those who can get into full-time paid employment. i can give you any number of examples of people shut out of paid employment because of their religious beliefs, their skin colour, their ethnicity and their gender. i remember, a few years ago, being told not to apply for a job because they’d tried employing a woman the last time around & it hadn’t worked out. so if i can’t even get a job because of discriminatory practices in employment, then what does it matter to me whether we have a living wage or one that’s lower?

     Because the claims to support low income and working people, from some of the “priority list”, “boutique” dog whistlers, aim for a gender blind approach to solutions for those on low incomes and or unable to find work.
     • phillip ure 1.4.1

       3 January 2014 at 9:26 am

       a ‘marginalisation’-issue i have with labour @ the moment is that the party seems unable to talk about the real poor..

       ..i have commented before how..when ardern/anyone from labour is asked about their solutions to poverty/inequality..they will only speak of ‘the working poor/need to raise minimum wage’..

       ..a ‘tutored/curated-message’ that must set a new benchmark in ‘the sliver approach’..

       ..to a large/complex..but totally solvable..problem..

       phillip ure..
       • weka 1.4.1.1

         3 January 2014 at 12:48 pm

         “a ‘marginalisation’-issue i have with labour @ the moment is that the party seems unable to talk about the real poor..”

         Yep, so let’s keep on critiquing Labour and pushing for them to get their shit together.

         (not sure about the ‘real’ bit though).
     • Olwyn 1.4.2

       3 January 2014 at 12:32 pm

       I have stayed away from this debate so far, mainly because I have been sick with an infection. However, I read CV’s claim as far more nuanced than the many commentators who have been angered by it did. The word “boutique” suggests a sub-class of issues rather than a whole class, as in the difference between “boutique beer” and “beer.” A “boutique gain” in this context would mean a sub-class of gains that can be trumpeted as making much more difference than they do. You could arguably get a “boutique gain” that was sold as advantaging working class men, when it neither seriously advantaged them nor off-set a greater disadvantage, as happened in the Simpsons episode when Mr Burns tried to replace the workers’ dental plan with a keg.

       As I read CV, the general thrust of his recent comments is that there is no room left for neo-liberal accommodation, and that “boutique gains” allow politicians to maintain an accommodation while denying that they are doing so. As the neo-liberal fangs sink deeper, this increasingly means appealing to people to vote against their interests, including the putative beneficiaries of these gains. And if I have him right then I agree with him.
       • weka 1.4.2.1

         3 January 2014 at 1:02 pm

         Yes and no Olwyn. The addition of ’boutique’ came rather late in the piece. For quite some time it was ‘identity politics’ with no qualifier. If CV had used the term ’boutique politics’ (not ’boutique identity politics’) at the start, AND explained what he meant by that, he might have coined a useful term to refer to the parts of the Labour party who are privileged by neoliberalism and so will only move on the things that benefit them or suit them, all the while ignoring the poor (not totally convinced that would have worked, but possible).

         The problem is though, that when you put his use of the term ‘identity politics’ alongside his politics around some identities (esp gender), it just starts to look really bad. Because he doesn’t just mean the toffs in Labour, he does actually mean that we (not just him) should put aside all our other concerns and focus on his vision.

         I think part of why this has been so messy is that the focus on economics, which lots of people agree with, has been mixed up with the anti-identity stuff and that’s mixed up with probably prejudicial views.
       • greywarbler 1.4.2.2

         3 January 2014 at 3:41 pm

         Olwyn
         Good points. I look forward to seeing this matter settled and put aside when CV comes back. I think primarily he is concerned to get action on climate change matters so we prepare ourselves for likely violent weather that will change our lives for ever. This means that there will have to be time allocated for looking at how the poor and the disadvantaged through health problems etc. can best be provided both in the middle future as well as the next few years.

         This has to be watched – I remember thinking Lange’s Labour making a stand against nuclear proliferation was right but we at the same time were being undermined by neo liberalism. It was as if only one big thing took all the energy – the view was outward and the at home problems just got passed over.

         I do believe Labour must keep working to assist people who are struggling and need more resources. But Labour has got intoxicated in the past with ideas without pragmatism. One case is the swingeing changes for special needs education.

         Mainstreaming in education was imposed by Labour. It could just have been introduced, with more opportunities for special needs children on what they already had, so they could choose to go where they could achieve and were happiest. But no, and what a costly imposition it has been on the education system, and on teachers who are also burdened by new reporting systems.

         I heard two fathers speaking on Radionz last week on the need for individual help in classes for their special needs children. The fathers had gone to central government and got another 30 teachers allocated nationwide. Good for them. But schools can buckle under the cost of numerous special needs. The idea that teachers can adequately teach a disparate class and also cope with special needs with no drop in outcomes is risible. It cannot be overlooked when viewing the nasty attacks on teacher success and achievement of recent years.
         • Olwyn 1.4.2.2.1

           3 January 2014 at 5:23 pm

           “I look forward to seeing this matter settled and put aside when CV comes back.”

           So do I, very much so. It’s election year. Let’s hope we are just getting a few tensions out of the way, and can work toward a win for the left.
         • karol 1.4.2.2.2

           3 January 2014 at 5:28 pm

           On special education, gw: I worked in special education under Thatcher’s PM-ship – and it was part of the neoliberal shift to “mainstream” education of children with disabilities. I agree with your comments on what would have been a better way.

           I came to the conclusion that the pressure for mainstreaming was done to save money. It meant some children were put into classes where teachers had neither the specialist training, nor the time to provide the education some of those children needed.
           • greywarbler 1.4.2.2.2.1

             3 January 2014 at 6:00 pm

             karol
             That was most interesting. I felt that about money saving, hidden under concern for better opportunities etc which was false. But it did deliver advantages for some. But then I considered that those who could have gained most from mainstreaming could have had time at other schools teaching appropriate subjects where the youngster could extend their learning while still homing at the special school. Which has been done in some places.

             The other thing that has concerned me is the feeding into the hopes of some parents who have unreasonable expectations for their youngster. One has to be careful about squashing hopes I know but with every chance some couldn’t manage. When Labour first started the mainstreaming there was a young woman trying to get accounting who attended the same course for at least two years. She might have been able to get a book-keeping position, but would not have been accepted as an accountant in a charitable institution or private company. Her appearance, speech, communication alone would not inspire confidence and the standard of work would be in doubt even if she achieved certification.

             Heard Alexei Sayle on Britain and politics Panic (manic)
             
             • karol …

               3 January 2014 at 6:29 pm

               Yes, to the fact that some students benefit from mainstreaming – partly it has to do with class sizes and the amount of time a teacher can give to a child with “special needs”.

               I have worked on some programmes to iintegrate primary school children in mainstream classrooms – eg me spending time with them in a mainstream class for part of the day – providing guidnce to classroom teachers, etc. That is another alternative, but it can’t be done on the cheap. And there is also the danger of the child being seen by others as “different”. So the other children need to be encouraged to accept diffferences in others.

               Ah, yes, acceptance in a workplace. Again, part of that would be educating the general population on accepting differences. And maybe more focus on jobs to suit people’s skills –

               Then we need the wider approach to work – shorter work weeks for all, more opportunities for divrse jobs.
             • swordfish …

               3 January 2014 at 7:20 pm

               Yeah, I broadly agree with you, greywarbler. My mother was an IHC special needs pre-school teacher for more than a decade. She’s not a great fan of mainstreaming. Special needs kids used to get one-to-one / small-group tuition from very qualified, specialised teachers. These days with mainstreaming they generally don’t seem to receive the focussed/specialised attention anymore.
   • tinfoilhat 1.5

     3 January 2014 at 9:50 am

     Wonderful post stargazer
     • weka 1.5.1

       3 January 2014 at 1:03 pm

       +1 many times, awesome post. Great to have you here too stargazer.
   • Bill 1.6

     3 January 2014 at 12:06 pm

     Hmm. Something strange is going on here. Both ‘sides’ of this recent debate are both right and wrong and both are arguing for the introduction of ‘back burners’ to ensure that meaningful change can occur.

     On the one side, there would appear to be a wish that issues around gender etc should be put there. Thing is, that’s putting people on the back burner and basically taking them right out of the equation. So, okay, it’s true that all the gains in all the areas we might imagine will mean nought if…when resource depletion and global warming hit. But what’s the point, from an anthropological point of view, of tacking these things if people aren’t brought along?

     None or little? Okay.

     But people are being left out of the equation on the other side of the coin too. Subtly. Males and females and whatever other way you want to define and divvy up or categorise people as are there. But not people. So, just as elevating certain issues above people removes people from consideration, so by default, does any elevated list of categories or identities.

     I’ll put it like this. I’m a person. First and foremost and elevated way above any self selected or imposed identity, I’m just a person. Secondary to that simple fact come all types of definition or identity, that constantly shift in relation to one another in accordance with circumstance…ie, a perspective of whiteness might take precedence over maleness or whatever else in given situations. But always I’m first and foremost just a person. Not white. Not male. Not working class. Not a fat, thin, tall, short or adult anything. Just a person.

     Now sure, society doesn’t see it that way because most of us don’t view ourselves that way. So a host of divisive and destructive dynamics have become embedded in the cultures, societies and institutions we develop which then get magnified back for us to adopt as ‘normal’….cue, racism, sexism, fatism or any other fucking ism you care to mention.

     But if I see myself and you see yourself and we view each other first and foremost in terms of ‘just a person’, then we have what we might call an incorruptible commonality.

     And the flow on effect of that is that all the schisms created by elevating secondary identity markers to positions of preeminence begin to lose their potency…the feedback loop mentioned above would weaken.

     But from what I can tell, most people see themselves, and others too, first and foremost in terms of those secondary markers of definition or identity. So (sheesh – the language is about to get a bit tautological here) most men see themselves as primarily men as opposed to seeing themselves as people with a given gender.

     And when ‘man’…or any of the other identity markers you might consider get’s assigned an importance that displaces the simple notion of ‘person’…then an environment of division ensues such that difference tends to become a source of judgement and evaluative comparison rather than one of simple curiosity and value free acknowledgement. And we continue to inflict inordinate levels of suffering on each other as a result.

     Curtailing this comment by simply reiterating. You want rid of the shit? Then for one thing, stop viewing yourself and those around you in terms of the shit. and blah, blah “The personal is political”. Or…seeing as how it came to mind cause it was being played recently… “Free your mind and your ass will follow”. Except, I guess we should insert ‘society’ in the place of ass 😉

     Or we can run around on the spot fighting fire with fire and see where we end up.
     • just saying 1.6.1

       3 January 2014 at 12:57 pm

       In reply, four words:
       fiddler on the roof.
       • Bill 1.6.1.1

         3 January 2014 at 1:22 pm

         Am I right to interpret that as some code meaning you see no problem with buying into and even encouraging an endless antagonistic scenario of contesting identities? Men/women…black/white…French/German…2 legs (good or bad)/4 legs(bad or good) and all the catechisms each will, by and by, formulate to enhance themselves at the expense of denigrating all others?

         I dunno js…maybe I’m not understanding your comment, in which case a wee bit of explanation would be appreciated.
         • just saying 1.6.1.1.1

           3 January 2014 at 1:48 pm

           Why fight discrimination and victim-blaming in one place but not another?

           Bigotry has real-world effects on recipients, which I thought you recognised when you pushed back against it in that instance.

           You can’t be selectively zen, otherwise it looks like you’re using the rhetoric to demand your interests are attended to while demanding others being bullied stfu.
           • Bill 1.6.1.1.1.1

             3 January 2014 at 3:20 pm

             Why fight discrimination and victim-blaming in one place but not another?

             Pass. No idea why. And haven’t suggested such.

             Bigotry has real-world effects on recipients, which I thought you recognised when you pushed back against it in that instance.

             Yup. you thought right.

             You can’t be selectively zen, otherwise it looks like you’re using the rhetoric to demand your interests are attended to while demanding others being bullied stfu.

             As I’ve commented in response to QoT below, I’m not suggesting that anyone stfu. Not in any way, shape or form.

             I wrote the comment because ‘both camps’ – or however you want to phrase it – are right and both are wrong in their own way and on their own terms and both camps exclude people (one overtly and the other far more subtly). And it’s just really fucking weird and a bit depressing at least to my way of thinking… while still slowly trying to get my head around the ramifications of Adele’s comment about whanau being a principle or primary foundation of self..
     • QoT 1.6.2

       3 January 2014 at 1:13 pm

       Bill, this sounds like you’re saying if we just agree to ignore the prejudices and oppressions imposed on different groups by society, we’ll overcome them.

       But unfortunately, those prejudices and oppressions exist. They have serious effects on people’s lives. And it’s frequently those in the most privileged positions who want to say “just ignore colour/gender/sexuality/ability”.

       I can’t just “stop viewing myself” as a woman, as a person who is treated differently by society, who faces specific prejudices and disadvantages because I am a woman. And frankly I shouldn’t have to.

       “The personal is political” is an incredibly important idea. I’m not going to throw it out just because more privileged people can’t get over the fact that some discussions aren’t about their personal lives.
       • Bill 1.6.2.1

         3 January 2014 at 1:36 pm

         No. I’m not suggesting that any prejudices and oppressions get ignored. Also, I’m not suggesting you “stop viewing yourself” as a woman any more than I’m suggesting I stop viewing myself as a man…all I said was that we are all principally…first and foremost…use whatever term you want – people. I’m a person…and a man and white and whatever. You are a person and a woman and whatever. What we have in common…and in some cases what may be the only thing that we have in common when looking at respective culture, gender and christ knows what… is the fact that we are just people. But it seems to me that if we (individually or as a society) routinely and for no good reason of circumstance….ie, in a neutral default space….elevate gender or race or whatever in our minds eye as the principle defining ‘me’ and supplant the primacy of us just being people, then we invite ‘othering’ and all that tends to lead to in terms of dominance, subjugation and so on.

         And yes, I know ‘the personal is political’ idea is a powerful and important one. That’s why I wrote it in as part of my comment.
         • QoT 1.6.2.1.1

           3 January 2014 at 2:25 pm

           Um … you didn’t “write it in as part of your comment”, you dismissed it:

           You want rid of the shit? Then for one thing, stop viewing yourself and those around you in terms of the shit. and blah, blah “The personal is political”.

           This plainly says that the problem is *my* (or other people’s) “viewing myself” as part of an identity group. Your solution is for *me* to withdraw from discussions of identity politics.

           The best articles I’ve seen discussing why this kind of thing is problematic are specifically about the idea of “colour blindness”, or “not seeing race”, but I think the same ideas apply:

           http://whiteseducatingwhites.com/2012/09/03/race-101-colorblindness-and-the-privilege-of-not-seeing-race/
           http://www.racebending.com/v4/campaigns/airbender/the-problem-with-colorblindness/
           • Bill 1.6.2.1.1.1

             3 January 2014 at 2:47 pm

             No QoT. I didn’t dismiss it. Definitely not. The ‘blah, blah’ – if that’s where the misunderstanding is coming from, was where I was running out of ways to express what I was trying to convey. It wasn’t a dismissive qualifier to be attached to ‘The personal is political’. Is that what you did when reading it? Anyway…

             Also I said one thing…ie, not the ‘be all and end all’….not the solution, but possibly one tool we could use (because insofar as we can, it would ‘break the cycle’ of reinforcing prejudice via the subtle habits of ‘othering’ we are inculcated with) would be to stop viewing (perceiving might have been a more accurate term) ourselves and others principally through the bounded ‘norms’ or various lens supplied back to us and taught to us by our society. And that (as said before) was in no way a suggestion to dance around with gormless beatific smiles deluding ourselves in some sincerely insincere way that everything is hunky dory.
             • weka …

               3 January 2014 at 2:51 pm

               I also took the ‘blah, blah’ as a dismissal, so thanks for clarifying.
               • Bill …

                 3 January 2014 at 2:57 pm

                 shit Nice to know I can write clearly enough for people to take the precise opposite meaning to what I intended.
         • just saying 1.6.2.1.2

           3 January 2014 at 6:09 pm

           So whose interests do I exclude Bill? Who does QoT, Karol, Weka….exclude?

           How I view myself has sweet fuck all to do with how others categorise me, and how others treat me according to those categorisations. To say I see myself as principally anything because I wish to have my own, and the interests and needs of others who are deemed less important or irrelevant listened to is bollocks. We return to them again and again because of the responses we get, not because of some unhealthy preoccupation. To say this is about identity rather than human rights and equality beggars belief. I don’t know about anyone else but I loathe these particular conversations. I don’t even feel particularly angry, just drained and disillusioned.

           The reason I brought up your fight regarding the fiddler on the roof thing is because I’d like to know what the difference is. Do you “principally and first and foremost” see yourself as a beneficary, or were you fighting for justice human rights and respect, and because what Shearer said was bollocks?
           • Bill 1.6.2.1.2.1

             3 January 2014 at 7:00 pm

             Why you referring to me by name in a comment when the comment is full of stuff I haven’t said said or even hinted at?

             Fucking completely over people (apparently) not reading stuff properly and being content to jump to conclusions and criticisms. Anyway…

             The one bit of relevance I can see in your comment is the last para. Yes, js…odd as it may seem, I see myself as a person. It’s what I am. And just like you or anyone else I’m multifaceted….and different facets come to the fore depending on circumstance. Does that stop people categorising me and landing bullshit or whatever because of their prejudice, assumptions and so on? Of course not. Does it make it easier for me on a personal level (cue someone to land the fucking ‘you’re just an individualist‘ bullshit again)…anyway, does it make it easier to recognise, negotiate and/or reject the bullshit (attitudes, mores etc) I’m ‘meant’ to adopt as part of being a man in this society? Yup. Is that to my advantage in any way that society might measure? Nope.

             That a comprehensive enough answer to your question?
             • just saying …

               3 January 2014 at 7:04 pm

               Yes, I’m well and truly dismissed.

               edit: just adding this quote:
               …both camps exclude people (one overtly and the other far more subtly)…

               Now I’m dismissed.
               • Bill …

                 3 January 2014 at 7:26 pm

                 You do understand I was merely referring to a concept right? I mean, right after your fragmented cut ‘n paste is this….Males and females and whatever other way you want to define and divvy up or categorise people as are there. But not people.
             • stargazer …

               3 January 2014 at 7:17 pm

               “cue someone to land the fucking ‘you’re just an individualist‘ bullshit again”

               and yet that’s all you’re talking about. how it affects you personally, how you personally deal with prejudice, what your personal attitude should be, and how everyone should just adopt that attitude because it will make it so much easier to fix all the problems without actually telling us how exactly. how exactly are we supposed to talk about beneficiary rights without talking about beneficiaries as a class of people and about the way they are as a class are scapegoated by the right & by this current government, and by david shearer in his beneficiary on the roof speech? if they are “just people”, then the label beneficiary has no meaning, and there is no injustice and nothing to talk about. the fact that the right smear them should just be ignored because if we talk about beneficiaries as a class or an identity, then they aren’t “just people” anymore and we’ve suddenly marginalised all the not-beneficiaries, and excluding them is just as bad as mentioning that being a beneficiary carries with it some levels of prejudicing and stereotyping.

               i’m trying to understand what you;re saying here, and i can’t make any sense of it. i can’t see the whole “just a person” thing as anything other than a silencing tactic. your explanation in this comment reinforces that more than it does anything else.
               • enjoy every sandwich …

                 3 January 2014 at 7:56 pm

                 Why should we talk about just beneficiaries!? How about red-haired, freckled beneficiaries?? How dare you just lump them in with ‘just beneficiaries’. You insensitive clod!

                 It’s turtles all the way down…
                 • QoT …

                   3 January 2014 at 9:01 pm

                   See, and this is exactly what stargazer’s saying (from my interpretation). Even within the group “beneficiaries” there will be people who are harder hit by National Party reforms, or who are already at a disadvantage – parents, migrants, people in rural communities, people with disabilities.

                   Your snide little comment about “red-haired, freckled” beneficiaries just shows that you don’t have a fucking clue.
                   • enjoy every sandwich …

                     3 January 2014 at 10:37 pm

                     Hell, maybe it is me that’s not getting it?

                     My point was that there is no end to the sub divisions you can create. You’d have all politics discussed within the perspective of every individuals perspective. Not only that, you happily jump on any possible interpretation of what someone has said if you think it doesn’t closely prescribe to the manner
                     in which you think it should be discussed.
                     Look at the hoops you and stargazer have tried to make Bill jump through, pulling him up on petty, minor points, I’m astounded at his patience.

                     Of course some beneficiaries are more disadvantaged than others but divvying them up into an infinite number of subgroups doesn’t help things, it unnecessarily complicates things. Much more effective, and less divisive, to say, ‘Hey I’m a person, if I was a beneficiary, LGBT, female, insert label here, I could understand the difficulties that could present’ and go from there.

                     This is what I was saying about CV being Asian, he doesn’t channel all his politics through that. That would be divisive and cause unnecessary conflicts.
                     You on the other hand appear to love the divisiveness that comes from channeling your politics through the personal because you thrive on conflict.
                   • Sacha …

                     3 January 2014 at 11:29 pm

                     “This is what I was saying about CV being Asian, he doesn’t channel all his politics through that. That would be divisive and cause unnecessary conflicts.”

                     How are you sure they’re unnecessary?
                   • enjoy every sandwich …

                     3 January 2014 at 11:38 pm

                     How are you sure they’re unnecessary?

                     ffs, because they use up valuable time in an election year when we should be figuring out how to beat National!
                     Instead we’re looking like asshats with this stupid in fighting which has been in part created by the devisive language games of QoT and karol and still they refuse to take any responsibility for it.
                   • Sacha …

                     3 January 2014 at 11:42 pm

                     If only we could all listen to waitakere man about what’s important.
                     Oh wait, tried that..
                   • Sacha …

                     3 January 2014 at 11:48 pm

                     “in an election year when when we should be figuring out how to beat National!”

                     too late
                   • enjoy every sandwich …

                     3 January 2014 at 11:52 pm

                     yay, here we go again, trotting out the strawmen again. So because I don’t agree with you I must therefore be a misogynist male?
                   • Sacha …

                     4 January 2014 at 12:26 am

                     irrelevant much
                   • karol …

                     4 January 2014 at 7:46 am

                     ees,

                     you seem to be doing a lot of infighting…. on and on you go…. And you seem to be prepared to continue to sew discord in order to create CV martyrdom and silence us nasty feminists/women.

                     there is plenty of room for criticism on the left.

                     Remind me again who was one of the leading Standardistas in criticising Shearer, and told to shut up because he was spi=litting the Labour Party at a crucial time – and is still crtiical of Cunliffe’s Labour for not taking a strong enough line on beneficiaries etc?

                     Or is it only feminist/gay critiques you want to silence?
                   • enjoy every sandwich …

                     4 January 2014 at 8:55 am

                     you seem to be doing a lot of infighting…. on and on you go…. And you seem to be prepared to continue to sew discord in order to create CV martyrdom and silence us nasty feminists/women.

                     I like to think I’m bringing something fresh to the party, not many people have challenged the language games that have been played here. Possibly many readers/commentators have watched as others tried to challenge the scripture and get accused of being misogynist white males etc and so have either stayed quiet. Either that or they’ve tired of it and lost interest, moved to other blogs.

                     Also, there is no CV martyrdom and none of the usual leftist commentators has accused you of being nasty feminist women. That is completely in your head.
                 • karol …

                   4 January 2014 at 7:48 am

                   eees, maybe you need old white guy Trotter to explain it to you.
                   • enjoy every sandwich …

                     4 January 2014 at 8:32 am

                     Give me a break, karol. You and your passive-aggressive posse maraud around here insisting others play your language game, if someone disagrees you all pile on. The heretics are labelled mysogynists, or waitakere man or insensitive or offensive or patriarchal or trying to silence you or blah blah blah.

                     What swordfish says around here is pretty close to what I am driving at.
                     http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-02012014/#comment-752806

                     You’re so interested in fighting oppression? Then maybe you should have a think about the power you wield around here…
                   • karol …

                     4 January 2014 at 8:49 am

                     Mate – yes, I have some privileges and power compared with others. Never denied it. But I’m not the only one here with that. Your (alleged) martyred victim also has that.

                     You and swordfish exaggerate, to make a case of your (and/or your guy’s) alleged victimhood.

                     Goes back to the original points you made here.

                     I do not got on about gender, patriarchy etc at every opportunity, as you claimed – and I showed you the evidence – but you said that doesn’t matter cause you could find evidence I mentioned it a couple of times…. and now it’s you who are going on and on about it and ignoring any other discussions on TS..

                     CV’s “boutique” phrase was not just some obscure passing phrase.

                     You object do any critical arguments, discussion around issues of patriarchy, gender, feminism, sexuality etc – you use your muddle arguments making QoT, me and others being so all powerful above other authors and commenters here, that we must be silenced.
                   • enjoy every sandwich …

                     4 January 2014 at 9:37 am

                     Ok I take back that I said ‘everything is about gender etc with you’. That’s not true and I know you write a lot of good stuff about many different things. But that’s not to say you haven’t used the usual strawmen, such as accusing people of being white-dudes who are trying to silence you.

                     That’s like saying you and QoT and Weka are anti-asian for disagreeing with CV.
               • Bill …

                 3 January 2014 at 8:05 pm

                 Did I suggest exclusivity of perspective? No. Primacy and exclusiveness are entirely separate beasts and I only made reference to the former, not the latter.

                 If you don’t understand what I was getting at, then hey. I can’t explain or clarify beyond what I’ve tried to do so far. I’ll just reiterate (and you don’t have to believe me), but there is absolutely no desire by me to silence anyone. And there is no suggestion that people turn a blind eye to any form of oppression.

                 All I can suggest is that you think it through for yourself….there is bad shit in society….the ‘isms’. Where does it come from? Maybe you think there is a one way street and that it all originates in our institutions and is then imposed on us. Or maybe you think the street runs the other way. Whatever. Or maybe it’s a self reinforcing cycle or spiral between us and our institutions…backwards and forwards and backwards and forwards.

                 If it’s the latter, how do we break that continual flow? Maybe you don’t care.

                 Or maybe if we want to bust oppressions, then we have to find the root cause. Well, we built the institutions – not the other way around (at least, not in a chicken and egg scenario, although there are very powerful institutional drivers that shape us). So…know of any revolution that just focused on overthrowing any institution (as all the recorded ones have) that ever did much beyond tweaking the forms of oppression we visit on one another and swap a new boss in to take the place of the old boss?

                 Know of any reforms that didn’t just ‘shuffle the deck’ of oppressions before commencing to deal?

                 Maybe we should we just carry on with the ‘same old same old’ in the hope it pans out differently next time? Who knows. Maybe it will.
                 • stargazer …

                   3 January 2014 at 8:36 pm

                   “If it’s the latter, how do we break that continual flow? Maybe you don’t care.”

                   or maybe it’s that you haven’t cared to read the rather lengthy response to your “by magic” comment below. and again, you’re providing us with either/or alternatives – either we bust all the institutions or we do nothing. i’m not actually seeing any solutions from you. i don’t see how the “just a person” thing is any kind of solution at all. it’s not even anything, other than saying a change of internal attitude by an already marginalised person will fix all the problems.

                   i’m ok with working on incremental change within existing structures, while also working to dismantle those structures. yes, i’m happy that domestic violence is now a crime, that rape within marriage is now a crime, that married women are allowed to open bank accounts in their own names without their husband’s signature, that so many more areas of tertiary education are now open to women, that there is single mothers can get support from the state.

                   yes, we are losing some of the gains and we need to fight back. yes, the neoliberal model of running the economy is damaging to the majority of people and needs to be changed and dismantled. i’m perfectly happy to work on that (& have been doing so in my own way), as long as we also work on the marginalisation stuff at the same time (which i am also doing a lot of). are you ok with that or not? should i be doing both or stop doing one or the other? it really is impossible to tell from your comments here.

                   “…know of any revolution that just focused on overthrowing any institution (as all the recorded ones have) that ever did much beyond tweaking the forms of oppression we visit on one another and swap a new boss in to take the place of the old boss?”

                   ok. so no revolution. no over-throwing of institutions. what exactly are you arguing for here? you accept that there are all sorts of problems, but then what? a lot of words but nothing concrete about how change should occur. what is your magic bullet then? that we stop talking about marginalisation, or what? i don’t know what it is that you want to happen, or even what you think marginalised people are doing wrong. you say we are excluding people when we speak of issues around marginalisation. so if we shouldn’t stop speaking about that (because you’re saying you genuinely don’t want to silence us), then what exactly is it that you want?
                 • RedLogix …

                   3 January 2014 at 8:46 pm

                   Thanks Bill. I appreciate what you are attempting.

                   Or maybe if we want to bust oppressions, then we have to find the root cause.

                   That was my instinct too. Sadly a lot of people here seem quite attached to ‘their oppression’ and don’t take too kindly to being told it’s just a symptom.
                   • stargazer …

                     3 January 2014 at 9:21 pm

                     “Sadly a lot of people here seem quite attached to ‘their oppression’”

                     in what way, RL? does talking about it mean we are attached? if we propose solutions, that from our lived experience, know will make things better for us, does that mean we’re attached? if we stopped talking about the way oppression affects us, does that prove that we’re unattached? if we make sure we never say a word, and assume that economic changes will do away with all other forms of oppression (even though there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary, as i’ve shown in many comments here today), will that prove we’re unattached?
                   • RedLogix …

                     3 January 2014 at 9:36 pm

                     Symptoms need dealing to. By all means struggle to find ways of relieving them, by all means talk about them with other people to learn from their experience, or educate in order to fight ignorance and disrespect. Things ain’t going to get better by magic.

                     But what if there was an underlying root cause? What if with humility and insight there was something that could be changed which would change the picture completely?
                   • just saying …

                     3 January 2014 at 9:40 pm

                     What if with humility and insight there was something that could be changed which would change the picture completely?
                     LOL
                     Oh the fucking irony
                   • karol …

                     3 January 2014 at 9:41 pm

                     I wondered about RL’s comment on being attached to oppressions, too, stargazer.

                     I have been pondering since my teenage years on my (lesbian) sexuality, from just about every angle – including the issues of the oppression, and its causes.

                     I’m wondering which “root cause/s” I have missed during all those years…. and how come I’ve missed them? An what it is (allegedly) a sympom of?

                     Ditto for the oppression of women…. damn I’ve studied, discussed, read in depth about such things and various other toppressions….. what’d I miss?
                   • stargazer …

                     3 January 2014 at 9:41 pm

                     i’m hoping this comment comes in the right order since there’s no reply button to your last comment RL.

                     but please, since you know what the root causes are and i clearly don’t, since you are so much smarter than me about my own life and experiences, tell me what the answer is. what is this one thing that would change the picture completely, and why hasn’t it been done up til now, when there have been so many minds much more brilliant than yours or mine on the planet? minds that have had access to power and platforms, and could have implemented this one single great and wonderful thing that would simultaneously remove all social/cultural marginalisation along with economic marginalisation.

                     please do tell me, because i’m genuinely interested in the answer. and it better not be 42.
                   • RedLogix …

                     3 January 2014 at 11:56 pm

                     but please, since you know what the root causes are and i clearly don’t, since you are so much smarter than me about my own life and experiences, tell me what the answer is

                     The word humility should have been a clue, because that’s the spirit I intended it in. Like Bill it’s my instinct to explore this idea.

                     I’m wondering which “root cause/s” I have missed during all those years…. and how come I’ve missed them? An what it is (allegedly) a sympom of?

                     Everywhere there is injustice, oppression and disparity of every possible kind. All of which are based on differences – gender, sexuality, disability, skin colour and so-on. All of which are external and superficial.

                     I realise that’s a statement of the obvious.

                     Underlying all these externalities, is what we authentically have in common, what makes us ‘people’ as Bill says. From that starting point there is absolutely no excuse or justification for prejudice, discrimination or disparity – of any kind.

                     I keep coming back to the idea that each of us has an essential inner freedom, which is our birthright, yet as a culture we have discarded this for a ‘freedom to shop’. We give freedom to the elites and corporates to rape the planet, while imposing judgement, disadvantage and turning our faces away from cruelty inflicted on the people around us. We seem to have everything completely upside-down.

                     I’m not suggesting you missed anything at all karol. It’s probably just the old engineer in me, who when confronted with a bunch of diverse fuck ups – starts casting about in the less obvious corners for clues.
                   • stargazer …

                     4 January 2014 at 12:40 am

                     but the thing is, RL, i already work on the commonalities between people, for example with the stuff i’m doing as part of the waikato interfaith council. even so, recognising commonalities necessarily also involves respecting and valuing our differences. if we can’t do the latter, then the former has no meaning. and we support each others communities when one group is facing some kind of discimination – i can give concrete examples of that if you like.

                     but also, that work would be meaningless if we ignored that marginalisation is a thing and that some communities within the interfaith movement face more of it than others. so the main christian groups represented on the council do very much recognise that and raise their voices when one of the smaller religions are attacked. they don’t just ignore it or pretend it doesn’t exisit or doesn’t matter as much as other things.

                     i can give similar examples with other groups i work with, but i have to go now.
                   • just saying …

                     4 January 2014 at 7:47 am

                     The ‘free your mind’ (like I have) line, really is the gold standard of patronising.
                     Twinning it with ‘you’ve made victimhood your identity – let it go’, for me a kind of acme of the paternalistic, yet weirdly passsive aggressive put-down. And when you think about it, a pretty nasty one.
                     And of course the triple whammy is telling us we need to be more humble and pay more attention to what they are saying. About our experiences, our minds and our lives…..

                     One of the holy trinity’s of sexism really. (and every other ism in the boutique)…….

                     (But then, maybe you’re onto something, guys. This could have loads of applications. Imagine if you gave this advice to the wharfies in Auckland – to workers in industrial disputes everywhere……..)
                   • karol …

                     4 January 2014 at 7:57 am

                     Oh dear, RL.

                     A let down. You really are not telling me anything I didn’t know already – is why I will challenge any kind of oppression, and am not primarily focused on those that impact on me. If I was, most of my TS posts would be on gender and sexuality. It’s why I am firmly located on the left.

                     An awareness of your “root causes” changes nothing re my politcs or arguments.
                   • RedLogix …

                     4 January 2014 at 9:28 am

                     @js

                     As Bill said, nice to see how I can write something that is read as 100% the opposite of intended. It appears I have quite the talent in this.

                     Fuck off sweetie.

                     @karol

                     No I didn’t imagine for an instant I was going to change yours or anyone else’s politics. This debate is a self-discovery as much as anything else.

                     And yes we all have our particular political passions. Mine is a fairly obscure thing (public access to wilderness) that got me politicised a decade ago. It has a root cause (the notion of ‘private property’ taking supremacy over all other rights). I never blog on it.
                   • Sacha …

                     4 January 2014 at 10:03 am

                     “the idea that each of us has an essential inner freedom, which is our birthright”

                     Universal human rights, then?
                   • stargazer …

                     4 January 2014 at 2:58 pm

                     “And yes we all have our particular political passions. Mine is a fairly obscure thing (public access to wilderness) that got me politicised a decade ago. It has a root cause (the notion of ‘private property’ taking supremacy over all other rights). I never blog on it.”

                     so because you never blog on an issue you feel strongly about, everyone else should also just not talk about things? what’s the purpose of this comment?

                     and having thought about it some more, the whole “let’s just focus on what we have in common” is really just another way of saying “oh, there’s something affecting you which doesn’t affect me? well never mind, let’s just focus on what we have in common so that we don’t have to talk about that thing at all. that way, i will never be made to feel uncomfortable or have to deal with things that don’t affect me”.

                     see, i’m not a beneficiary and never have been. this doesn’t make me any better a person than someone who has been on a benefit all their lives. that person and me are of equal value and worth. but that’s not the way that society is treating the two of us. i’m not going to focus on what the two of us have in common. i’m going to use my voice to call out people who bash beneficiaries, i’m going to advocate for a raise in the basic benefit, i’m going to fight for the right of people to have an adequate level of income when they are unable to work for whatever reason, and i’m not going to put up with one or two examples of beneficiaries behaving badly being used to vilify a whole group. i will do that because it’s the right thing to do, and i won’t be talking about victim mentalities, and about how it’s divisive to talk about beneficiary issues, or that non-beneficiaries are being subtly marginalised when we talk about beneficiary issues. if we just focus on what we have in common, RL, then i wouldn’t be able to do any of that advocacy, i couldn’t be an ally to beneficiaries and i would just keep quiet when the right continue to slag beneficiaries. that is an unacceptable position to me.

                     now if this is not what you’re saying, then as with bill, please explain what is the correct way to deal with the issue above re beneficiaries. because i’m really unclear about what you think is wrong with the way i’m approaching things.
       • enjoy every sandwich 1.6.2.2

         3 January 2014 at 1:56 pm

         Yes shame on Bill for saying that perhaps the commonalities between us should be emphasised rather than the differences.

         Shame on Bill for trying to find some common ground between rival factions.

         Many of us, including myself, could consider themselves as a member of a one or other prejudiced and disadvantaged group. But we don’t keep trying to emphasise it because it takes valuable time, space and energy away from focusing on the shared problems between different groups.

         CV is asian, if he followed your lead he could justifiably harp on day and night about the injustices that asians suffer in New Zealand. He could argue that anyone here who is non-Asian has no right to question his authority on the topic because they haven’t had his personal experience. But he doesn’t. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him talk about it, if he has it is definitely a rare event because I have been reading this blog for a long time and I’ve never seen it. Probably the reason he doesn’t is because he knows it would be something that would be divisive, cause tension and just wouldn’t be helpful.
         • QoT 1.6.2.2.1

           3 January 2014 at 2:13 pm

           So … that’s more of the “shut up about women’s issues” line, then.
           • enjoy every sandwich 1.6.2.2.1.1

             3 January 2014 at 2:17 pm

             Hah weak. You can’t make a logical argument so you just reach for the straw-man
             • karol …

               3 January 2014 at 2:21 pm

               ees, interesting you attempt to lecture others on logic.
               • enjoy every sandwich …

                 3 January 2014 at 2:24 pm

                 Another strong rebuttal…
           • weka 1.6.2.2.1.2

             3 January 2014 at 2:17 pm

             Seems fair. I mean if we’re not going to talk about sandwich identity, why should we talk about any other identity?

             Meanwhile, let’s get back to the real politics of what to do with this loaf of bread, butter, lettuce, tomato…
             • fender …

               3 January 2014 at 2:24 pm

               LOL

               Sorry but we can’t enjoy every sandwich, only certain endorsed ones..
               • QoT …

                 3 January 2014 at 2:28 pm

                 Tomato is clearly not a Tier One filling.
                 • enjoy every sandwich …

                   3 January 2014 at 2:36 pm

                   Still not a single cogent response from any one of you…
                   • McFlock …

                     3 January 2014 at 6:09 pm

                     I’m hungry…
     • Adele 1.6.3

       3 January 2014 at 1:41 pm

       Kiaora Bill

       But if I see myself and you see yourself and we view each other first and foremost in terms of ‘just a person’, then we have what we might call an incorruptible commonality.

       Well, from an indigenous perspective, the ‘person’ is an alien concept. The smallest social unit is ‘whanau.’

       Besides, the blank slate of ‘person’ doesn’t exist outside of the skin as so much of your rhetoric is wrapped up in a cultural ethos that is not universally appreciated or comprehended.
       • Bill 1.6.3.1

         3 January 2014 at 2:27 pm

         Hi Adele,

         I get that I’m limited to speaking from a discrete cultural perspective (European) and, yeah…so only to a limited European perspective.

         Hmm. At pains of maybe sounding as though I’m simply asking you to repeat yourself, but just so I’m clear on exactly what I’m trying to get my head (somewhat) around – when you say that whanau is the smallest social unit, are you saying that whanau constitutes the core sense of identity or being?
         • just saying 1.6.3.1.1

           3 January 2014 at 6:51 pm

           I’ll be interested to hear Adele’s reply, I enjoy learning from her.

           But in the meantime…as I understand it, there is no word for “individual” in Maaori, and there was no particular concept of “individual” before Pakeha.

           Maybe the capitalist concept of ownership and money as the basic unit of human interaction has something to do with the difference in thinking. I believe tradionally, Maaori don’t even believe that they own their own bodies – these belong to the ancestral Papatuanuku (Mother Earth) and must be returned to her.

           I hope I’ve got this right. Love to hear more from you on this topic, Adele.
           • Bill 1.6.3.1.1.1

             3 January 2014 at 8:10 pm

             Thanks for that js….suggesting that there could be no ‘power over’ one person by another. And..yeah…
           • Adele 1.6.3.1.1.2

             7 January 2014 at 9:35 am

             Tēnā kōrua Bill and Just Saying

             I am sorry it has taken so long to get back to you both.

             I originally thought to respond in some really indigenously inspired way. To serve up a huge pot of allegory boiled to metaphysical perfection and served with dumplings of weighty meaning. But no, I have had a crap holiday break and being pleasantly philosophical does not currently fit my temperament.

             My son is 20 years old and is a complete dick. He spent Christmas day in a Police cell through my instigation.

             I am not feeling particularly high-minded as I so want to taser the little prick. I even went so far as to ask the Police if they could taser the boy but apparently that’s not really how they do things. But then, he’s Māori, so what more reason do they really need.

             This son of mine simply has no regard for family or friends or neighbours or the community at large. He cares very little for the people to his left or for the people to his right. He cares even less for the people before him and is dismissive of the people in his wake. He is totally disrespectful of people above his status and would happily piss on those beneath his feet. He is completely untethered.

             His Individualism is like a cancerous cell. It serves no useful purpose to the host organism and causes only corruption from the inside out. Dr Spock sucks.

             Now I am off to make a taser from a cattle prod which can easily be plugged into the national grid.
     • weka 1.6.4

       3 January 2014 at 1:42 pm

       Hmm, most of that was a bit abstract for me I’m afraid Bill, but I liked this

       “Then for one thing, stop viewing yourself and those around you in terms of the shit.”

       It’s why I shuddered when I read a comment stating that the working classes were all prole fodder for the capitalist machine. I just don’t see oppressed people on those kinds of terms.

       It’s also why I personally don’t believe that my feminism disappears if NZ suddenly becomes a paragon of egalitarianism. I love women’s culture and there are many beautiful, creative and deeply satisfying things that come out of that.

       Personally I don’t feel that my mind needs to be freed from… not sure what you were meaning exactly, but it did sound like you were telling a whole bunch of people how to do their politics your way 😉

       I get that the whole banner-waving, sloganeering thing is hard. But you know what, for me personally, the conversations here on ts around this stuff are too often below 101 level. My mind and politics goes far beyond that and yet here we are constantly brought down to this lowest common denominator level simply because as a woman (or whatever) I speak from that place. The left should be lifting its game above this by now. That’s one big reason why we haven’t backed down and why the issue won’t go away.

       I don’t feel like I exist in some dualistic man vs woman, white vs black mentality. I’m just trying to ensure that I have a place at the table amongst my peers, and that my other peers do too. I also love diversity, so am never going to be someone makes a heirarchy of identity (human, then woman, then white etc). I don’t see anything wrong with that. And my ability to engage with diversity enhances my commonality with all humans (and other beings), it doesn’t diminish it.

       If that’s not true for you, than I have no problem with you working it out how it works for you 🙂 I’m just not clear why you would not afford others the same. But perhaps I’ve misunderstood. I think you bring up important paradigmic issues, I just hope we don’t all have to be in the same place.
     • stargazer 1.6.5

       3 January 2014 at 4:47 pm

       “I’ll put it like this. I’m a person. First and foremost and elevated way above any self selected or imposed identity, I’m just a person. Secondary to that simple fact come all types of definition or identity, that constantly shift in relation to one another in accordance with circumstance…ie, a perspective of whiteness might take precedence over maleness or whatever else in given situations. But always I’m first and foremost just a person. Not white. Not male. Not working class. Not a fat, thin, tall, short or adult anything. Just a person.”

       and that’s privilege talking right there. you have the ability to just see yourself as a person. i don’t. i get reminded by other people of my differences all the fucking time. i get excluded and rejected by people all the time. as a local body candidate, i was told that i wasn’t a kiwi, i was told all sort of things that shouldn’t have mattered. i was defined by so many people based on my characteristics. that happens in the realm of politics, in education, in health, in employment, in virtually every aspect of society where i have to interact with others. not everybody is like this, but there are so many that my access to all of those things is hampered by the way other people categorise and stereotype me. in an interview for a managerial position, i had my potential employers query my ability to be assertive, in a way that i’m sure they wouldn’t have queried a male. maybe you should go and read the micro-agressions site, and learn about the small experiences that happen every single day to people, that build up to a huge well of marginalisation, a pit that sometimes feels impossible to climb out of.

       you’ve basically said that all of this shit is my fault. if only *I* could see myself as just a person, then all of this shit that i face on a daily basis would just stop. can you really not see how incredibly insulting and offensive that is? you don’t hold society responsible, you don’t hold other people who treat me in this way responsible, you don’t hold our structures & institutions responsible nor the people who work within them, you don’t hold the way those structures are set up and designed responsible. no, it’s just me and my own attitude that is as fault here, according to you.

       which is highly convenient isn’t it? because then you don’t have to address any of my issues. they’re all in my head after all, so there’s no need to push for policies and political narratives that would change the reality of my situation. because you don’t experience it personally, you’re happy to just shove it aside.

       it’s also pretty much the line taken by sheryl sandberg, in her book “lean in” – a neoliberal, individualist look at problems of marginalisation which puts the solution solely in the hands of the marginalised individual, blind to her own privilege and the institutional, structural and cultural forces that create marginalisation.

       i’ll repeat what i said in my first comment: it’s just plain cruel.
       • Bill 1.6.5.1

         3 January 2014 at 5:50 pm

         Stargazer, do you see how you only took one ‘half’ of what I was saying and how that meant everything fell over? The other ‘half’ was about seeing others as people…that is, all people seeing all people in the light of them being people. Take half of what I said, as you did, and of course the whole fucking thing falls over and appears like victim blaming. But since what you are saying I said is not in fact what I said, well…

         And I do hold our social structures and institutions responsible, like (to quote myself from above)….”a host of divisive and destructive dynamics have become embedded in the cultures, societies and institutions we develop which then get magnified back for us to adopt as ‘normal’….cue, racism, sexism, fatism or any other fucking ism you care to mention.”

         Seems to me you’ve jumped to the same incorrect conclusions as others…that I’m suggesting we turn a blind eye to all the oppressive shit and damage we do to one another as though that would be any kind of solution.

         We and our attitudes/perspectives become part and parcel of our society which then reinforces those self same attitudes/perspectives. It’s a cycle. And it’s a part of the reason why economics can’t be tackled in isolation from other oppressions if we want a result that isn’t oppressive. But somewhere, the self-reinforcing cycle of shit that flows from us to our society and back to us again has to be weakened or broken.

         How do you think that can be done, short of changing our perspectives of what we are and what each and one another of us are? And how do you think we can change the perspectives we hold so dear or that others force on us? By magic? Or maybe by recognising what’s going on and, where possible, not buying into it or contributing to it? (And yes, there’s a heap of other shit that needs to be being donw in conjunction with whatever!)

         Of course, we could, as I commented in my final line, try to get us and our perspective further up the heap instead of working to level the heap.

         Children and some other people do it quite well in little ways…y’know, that honest curiosity that hasn’t been besmattered with expectations of prejudice and thrown into a, gawd only knows, how deep a pit that demands injurious judgmental garbage and nonsense from us in our interactions?
         • stargazer 1.6.5.1.1

           3 January 2014 at 6:29 pm

           i’m sorry bill, but i really can’t take someone telling me to just see myself as a person as anything other than patronising and offensive, regardless of “the other side” of your comment. i can’t get past that and pretend it doesn’t matter just because you said some other stuff as well.

           how do we change marginalisation? by listening to the experiences of marginalised people, and listening to the solutions they offer. by not telling that their issues aren’t important, are just boutique, draining, irrelevant, distracting us from the “important” stuff. i’ve found that every community has the solutions to their problems, they know what works. for example, the stuff that weka wrote about her experiences of disability, of what she needs from society and what changes structural changes need to be made in order for her to simply become “just a person” within in that society: let’s treat that as worth listening to, let’s see how we can incorporate it into our social and economic reforms so that we bring her with us. instead of patting her on the head, telling her that we know she has issues, we know that something should be done about it, but if we listen to her, we’re somehow marginalising and excluding other people.

           is this magic, bill? that simple two words “by magic?” is symptomatic of the dismissiveness, the offensiveness of the “boutique identity issues” arguments that is so much worse than swear words or other expressions of anger by people who are already marginalised and who continue to be by the way lefty progressives carry on the discourse. there’s nothing magic about listening. there’s nothing magic about saying that the revolution can be fought on many fronts, not just one.

           you want solutions for discrimination in employment? look at some of the work the office of ethnic affairs has been doing for many years; look at the work that was being done by settlement support services until the funding got cut by this government; look at the work being done by the human rights commission also now suffering from funding cuts & redundancies. there are plenty of programmes, big and small, being run across the country that are effective but need more resources and more staff.

           similarly in the area of rape prevention. heaps of work done, heaps of programmes that will be effective if only we as a society would fund it adequately and roll it out across all schools. is that magic? no, it’s simple practical solutions that do make a difference.

           there are ways to change attitudes, and there are plenty of us who are working solidly in our communities and who could with the support of the “boutique identity politics” crowd, instead of us being blamed for the lack of the dismantling of the neo-libreral market economy. because guess what, those of us working on changes in attitudes around marginalisation are ALSO pushing for changes to the economy. we’re not telling the “boutique indentity politics” crowd to shut up about economic and environmental and climate change issues. we’re fighting alongside you on all of that, and asking that you fight alongside us as well, on the issues that are vitally important to our well-being. but all we get in return is “shut up, you’re a distraction”. not good enough.
           • Bill 1.6.5.1.1.1

             3 January 2014 at 8:33 pm

             Aside from the fact you keep attacking me for what you think I’ve said and stuff I’ve obviously simply never said, fact is I don’t disagree with much, if anything you’re saying there
             • stargazer …

               3 January 2014 at 8:41 pm

               well, as i’ve just said in my comment up above, if i’m misunderstanding you then what exactly are you saying then? i just can’t understand what you think we’re doing wrong here. and if you agree with everything i’ve said, then what were all the words from you about? now i’m just confused.

               or maybe i should just be happy that we want all the same things, and can count on you being an ally on issues of both economic and social/cultural marginalisation? in which case, yay!
               • weka …

                 4 January 2014 at 12:05 am

                 I’ve read a fair bit but not all of this sub-thread. Stargazer, can I just say that I think you have in fact heaped some judgements on Bill that don’t belong there. He’s not someone ignorant of oppression nor how it affects people other than himself, and he’s one of the men on ts who generally makes an effort at acknowledging the deeper complexities of this before he disagrees with someone or puts forward his view.

                 I don’t actually agree with his concept* here (that as a general strategy one way out of the trap of oppression is to relate firstly as humans), and I’m still raising my eyebrows from the approach taken (“free your mind”), but I do think that much of this is largely about communication rather than Bill being ignorant of the issues and dynamics.

                 *I struggle with the abstractness of it, and like you want something more concrete to work with.

                 On the other hand, I can also see why you have reacted in the way you have and I’m sure that the validity of the degree of anger here is not appreciated by some.
                 • stargazer …

                   4 January 2014 at 12:34 am

                   ok, i can accept that about the heaping judgement thing. and i read most of the posts and comments on the standard, have done for many years, so i do know what bill is like generally & appreciate what he brings to debates. i guess in my comments in this bit, i’ve responded as much to what other people having been saying over the past few months as much as i am to what bill is saying here. it’s a chance for me to express my own anger and frustration at the way the debate has been framed, and the dismissiveness of so many of the commenters (see the sandwich person below, for instance).

                   but yes, i’m still at a loss as to what exactly he thinks we’re supposed to do differently to achieve the changes that need to happen around social and cultural marginalisation.
         • Sacha 1.6.5.1.2

           3 January 2014 at 6:38 pm

           “try to get us and our perspective further up the heap instead of working to level the heap”

           Bill, ‘we’re all just people’ is about as levelling as “he iwi tahi tatou”. And as useful.
           • Bill 1.6.5.1.2.1

             3 January 2014 at 8:30 pm

             Nah. You’re missing the point completely. Level – dismantle, obliterate etc. So sure, I’m just really bad at explaining some shit. Anyway.
             • weka …

               3 January 2014 at 11:45 pm

               “So sure, I’m just really bad at explaining some shit. Anyway.”

               yeah, what is with that lately? You’re usually much better at that.
       • enjoy every sandwich 1.6.5.2

         3 January 2014 at 10:47 pm

         you’ve basically said that all of this shit is my fault. if only *I* could see myself as just a person, then all of this shit that i face on a daily basis would just stop. can you really not see how incredibly insulting and offensive that is?

         How you can possibly extract that interpretation from what Bill said is beyond me. And then you pull out the insulting and offensive chestnut. I find everything you’ve said is insulting and offensive to me because you haven’t taken into consideration that I’m not a nutter who plays the victim to the extreme on TS like yourself. How completely selfish and insensitive of you.
   • thechangeling 1.7

     3 January 2014 at 3:04 pm

     Realistically as you say the living wage campaign is only relevant for the 500,000 or so people in paid employment earning less that the $18-40 per hour rate it supports, because there’s another 150,000 to 400,000 living on benefits who constitute the ‘ dirt poor’ in New Zealand now as opposed to the working poor living at or between the minimum wage of $14-30 and the living wage of $18-40.
     Then there’s people working 2 or more jobs to cobble together 40 hours of work a week to stay alive (the underemployed) that casualisation, temporary and part-time work has created particularly by temping agencies that cream off a good proportion of the hourly wage the worker would have received if they had been hired directly by the employer.
     Anyway, another damn good post and a great read even if the topic is endlessly depressing.
   • Draco T Bastard 1.8

     3 January 2014 at 3:06 pm

     there are no tiers, no need for priority lists.

     Actually, there is. Although we can do many things concurrently we can’t do everything all at once. It’s a simple physical limitation that cannot be overcome.
     • weka 1.8.1

       3 January 2014 at 3:45 pm

       I tend to agree with that Draco. For me the bridge between stargazer and your positions is to use egalitarian processes.

       If people from a group stand up and say, hey, this thing here is important, then let’s listen eg gay people talking about extreme homophobic violence. If working class men want to stand up and say, hey, this thing here is important, then let’s listen. If they, or people wanting to represent them, want to stand up and say, hey, all your issues need to be in the second tier so get to the back of the line (which frankly is how this whole ‘identity politics/Waitakere man’ thing comes across), then to me it not only dismisses other voices, but it completely fucks the egalitarian process we are so dependent on for finding solutions.

       If a whole lot of people want to focus on economics, all power to them. I’m saying that to do that in a useful way, we need to make sure that the politicised voices of whichever groups want to be heard are heard. If they are not allowed presence as politicised around their own needs and desires then the process becomes just another round of power and control. This is what I was getting at previously – how do we replace the current paradigm with something that isn’t just a shinier version of the same?

       Thinking about it, maybe this is coming close to what Bill was talking about as true democracy. Let’s complete the circle then. If the Big 3 crises are a natural consequence of shifts in some human cultures at the ‘5000 years ago’ mark, whereby protection and control of commodities and land was structurally built into the hands of the ruling classes, and this then changed the cultures into ones of domination processes (chicken and egg), then do we not now, at the end point, have to deconstruct not just the structure but the process?
       • Draco T Bastard 1.8.1.1

         3 January 2014 at 6:31 pm

         For me the bridge between stargazer and your positions is to use egalitarian processes

         WTH is an "egalitarian process"? Democracy perhaps?

         If they, or people wanting to represent them, want to stand up and say, hey, all your issues need to be in the second tier so get to the back of the line

         Good job nobody’s actually saying that then.

         If a whole lot of people want to focus on economics, all power to them. I’m saying that to do that in a useful way, we need to make sure that the politicised voices of whichever groups want to be heard are heard.

         And I’m saying that we need to prioritise and work together to achieve those which are important to all of us so that we can actually achieve them. Once higher priorities are achieved then we can go on to lower priorities and, as I say, we can do several high priorities at the same time – just not all of them at once.

         If the Big 3 crises are a natural consequence of shifts in some human cultures at the ’5000 years ago’ mark, whereby protection and control of commodities and land was structurally built into the hands of the ruling classes, and this then changed the cultures into ones of domination processes (chicken and egg), then do we not now, at the end point, have to deconstruct not just the structure but the process?

         No. We have to invent a new structure and a new process to bring about that structure. It will be multi-pronged addressing economic and social/cultural aspects.
         • weka 1.8.1.1.1

           3 January 2014 at 6:55 pm

           Depends what you mean by democracy.

           “Good job nobody’s actually saying that then.”

           Um, actually that’s not an uncommon thing to happen, even if you believe it hasn’t happened here on ts this week.

           “No. We have to invent a new structure and a new process to bring about that structure. It will be multi-pronged addressing economic and social/cultural aspects.”

           Different side of the same coin. The question still stands of how to do this without creating another power-over structure.
           • Draco T Bastard 1.8.1.1.1.1

             3 January 2014 at 7:32 pm

             Depends what you mean by democracy.

             One person, one vote.

             Different side of the same coin.

             No it’s not. Deconstruction leaves nothing while what we’re after is to replace the present system with a new one.

             The question still stands of how to do this without creating another power-over structure.

             Discussion and voting while upholding principles such as egalitarianism, freedom, and responsibility.
     • karol 1.8.2

       3 January 2014 at 3:53 pm

       DtB, I think here you remind me, partly of Lynn’s post yesterday. There sometimes seems to be some confusion between the Labour Party and the wider left on TS. I do agree a political party and/or government will have a priority list. But each left wing party will also have different priorities. Those of us not affiliated with any party, will tend to have those topics we post on more than others.

       But in the wider left, I do agree with no one group or party laying down the law about what other people’s priorities are.

       I have been pretty critical of the apparent priorities of the Labour Party in the past – I am more in accord with the main focus of the Green & Mana parties. On here we get some disagreement around that – fine – all are open for discussion.
       • Draco T Bastard 1.8.2.1

         3 January 2014 at 6:17 pm

         But in the wider left, I do agree with no one group or party laying down the law about what other people’s priorities are.

         See, I happen to think we should come to an overall agreement on what the priorities are for the next election so that we can work on those priorities rather arguing over what those priorities are.
         • weka 1.8.2.1.1

           3 January 2014 at 6:37 pm

           Who is the ‘we’ in that sentence? (eg is Josie Pagani included). How would you see that happening? Informally or formally?
           • Draco T Bastard 1.8.2.1.1.1

             3 January 2014 at 7:26 pm

             Who is the ‘we’ in that sentence?

             The left in general.

             How would you see that happening?

             Personally, I’m in favour of democracy.
2. phillip ure 2

   3 January 2014 at 7:55 am

   Here are some key facts about the historic roll-out of legal marijuana.

   http://www.alternet.org/6-things-you-should-know-about-buying-pot-colorado

   phillip ure..
3. North 3

   3 January 2014 at 8:00 am

   The essence of all of the above is why I like The Mana Movement.
   • phillip ure 3.1

     3 January 2014 at 8:11 am

     @ north..

     ..try being a vegan/animal-rights-freak in mana..

     ..whoar..!

     ..’holy marginalisation..!..batman..!..’

     ..hangi to the left of me..hangi to the right of me..

     ..heh..!

     ..those issues haven’t even yet been invited on to the marae..

     ..let alone coming anywhere near coming to the table/discussions..

     ..but i do have a plan so cunning..it should come with a gold toothpick..

     ..eh..?

     phillip ure..
     • AsleepWhileWalking 3.1.1

       3 January 2014 at 8:39 am

       Unfortunately most people would rather die than change their diet. Or accommodate freakish vegan fantasies.

       I’ve offended many aunties by refusing their boiled up death / wheat / sugar combo.
   • North 3.2

     3 January 2014 at 8:14 am

     Err, the Stargazer comment……PU not up when I commented. No problem with the common sense @ 2 though.
     • North 3.2.1

       3 January 2014 at 8:19 am

       Reckon our minds meat PU but let me vegetate on that for a while…….Whoar !
       • phillip ure 3.2.1.1

         3 January 2014 at 8:27 am

         heh..!..ok..!

         phillip ure..
       • phillip ure 3.2.1.2

         3 January 2014 at 9:48 am

         @ north..

         ..and to make my journey on the good ship mana even more fraught..

         ..my sirname..(scottish in origin)..

         ..means something quite different in te reo..eh..?

         ..whoar..!

         ‘holy geographical/linguistic-accident..!..batman..!..’

         phillip ure..
4. Ennui 4

   3 January 2014 at 8:55 am

   Something from yesterday, courtesy of Draco T Bastard (hope you dont mind me pasting and adding as it is very relevant to discussions here.

   It is the cult of self that is killing the United States.
   This cult has within it the classic traits of psychopaths: superficial charm, grandiosity and self-importance; a need for constant stimulation; a penchant for lying, deception and manipulation; and the incapacity for remorse or guilt. Michael Jackson, from his phony marriages to the portraits of himself dressed as royalty to his insatiable hunger for new toys to his questionable relationships with young boys, had all these qualities. And this is also the ethic promoted by corporations. It is the ethic of unfettered capitalism. It is the misguided belief that personal style and personal advancement, mistaken for individualism, are the same as democratic equality. It is the nationwide celebration of image over substance, of illusion over truth. And it is why investment bankers blink in confusion when questioned about the morality of the billions in profits they made by selling worthless toxic assets to investors.

   And, yes, the same is happening in NZ seemingly at the behest of those same psychopaths.

   Then there is behavior on the net, commented on yesterday by a prof of psychology, the subject being narcissism.

   http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/summernoelle/audio/2581569/psychology-with-professor-nathan-considin

   There are some interesting comments here with regard to how people say things online with little regard to others….enjoy.
   • aerobubble 4.1

     3 January 2014 at 10:12 am

     You mean like having Paul Henry, who failed Australians failed to take to, read the late news. Its was noticeable how right leaning the Herald was and is, when I arrived in NZ, and how mainstream media embed the thinking (and uncontested) of the economic right into the debate. Even, funnily enough, where even Moro couldn’t stop himself ignoring a classic last month, when a guest made the weird observation that migrants should move here to change NZ, Moro immediately brought up captain Cook. Usually Moro is helping with the digging when it comes to general ignorant statements the economic right need to shore up its vacant desperate hold on the media narrative.
5. Tracey 5

   3 January 2014 at 9:06 am

   Stargazer

   many thanks for taking the time to post such a good summary of some of my own thoughts.

   you have summarised one reason I am a greens supporter. They manage to base their world view on something holistic and despite being chided for it I believe they provide a practical solution. Turn the model upside down put and equal focus on people and environmental. Everything else is a subset of these two.

   The current model has a few peoples interest at heart and their theories and practices flow from that limited world view and self interest.
6. phillip ure 6

   3 January 2014 at 9:28 am

   this is pretty cool..

   ..it is issac asimovs’ predictions from 50 yrs ago..

   ..about what life would be like in 2014..

   ..he got a surprisingly high number of things right..

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/isaac-asimov-2014_n_4530785.html

   phillip ure..
7. RedBaronCV 7

   3 January 2014 at 10:01 am

   If ylou want to ruin your morning try Stuff. Our revered leader getting his next set of instructions
   • chris73 7.1

     3 January 2014 at 10:04 am

     Poor guy, always working 🙂
     • RedBaronCV 7.1.1

       3 January 2014 at 10:10 am

       If you mean selling NZ down the river , yes.
       • chris73 7.1.1.1

         3 January 2014 at 10:16 am

         Securing our future 🙂
         • RedBaronCV 7.1.1.1.1

           3 January 2014 at 10:23 am

           51st state?
           • chris73 7.1.1.1.1.1

             3 January 2014 at 10:29 am

             Not one of Samuel L Jacksons better movies
             • RedBaronCV …

               3 January 2014 at 11:13 am

               Not the movie. And do you honestly think that Obama cares one iota about what is best for NZ? What he cares about is the USA – which makes him a better leader than JK will ever be.
               • chris73 …

                 3 January 2014 at 1:49 pm

                 Obama a better leader then Key?!?!?! Ok Obama speaks well (when he has a prepared speech) but the USA is tanking in comparison to NZ
                 • fender …

                   3 January 2014 at 2:30 pm

                   All the more reason NZ shouldn’t follow the policies of the tanking USA?!?!
   • miravox 7.2

     3 January 2014 at 10:05 am

     Oh dear – I don’t even want to click on that…
   • karol 7.3

     3 January 2014 at 10:15 am

     Celebrity golf – so much the man of the people!
   • infused 7.4

     3 January 2014 at 10:18 am

     So much whining. Get over it.
8. NOT fisiani 8

   3 January 2014 at 10:09 am

   [deleted]
9. RedBaronCV 9

   3 January 2014 at 10:17 am

   Is this the new official photographer at work justifying his existence?
10. TMI/Philj 10

    3 January 2014 at 10:18 am

    Good post Stargazer.

    When I see the to and fro invectives between posters. I think of three things
    !. Its a healthy sign
    2. Its self abuse.
    3. The ‘righties are laughing their bottoms off.
    So before posting please think of the ‘righties’
    • weka 10.1

      3 January 2014 at 1:17 pm

      ” 3. The ‘righties are laughing their bottoms off.”

      I’ve seen comments like this alot lately. You know what though? I don’t care. I don’t care what the righties think. I don’t think we need to be afraid of having due process and that being visible. We’re probably better off doing this in a public place like ts than in a private space. Hashing out conflict in public isn’t the issue, it’s what we do with it from here that is important.
      • Sacha 10.1.1

        3 January 2014 at 1:24 pm

        Need a process moderated better than is possible here. It also needed to happen a lot earlier than now, and I believe the left political parties are well-advanced in their own internal policy and campaign prep processes. Perhaps haven’t done such a good job of bridging between themselves and to other non-party allies yet.

        However if Labour for one can’t get its shit together enough to know by now whose interests it represents then we’re all in trouble. Anyone acting like it’s still FPP or trying to reactivate ‘Waitakere Man’ after the last monumental election defeat deserves a swift kick in the jacksie on their way out the door.
        • weka 10.1.1.1

          3 January 2014 at 1:48 pm

          I was quite hopeful about Labour for a bit, what with all the membership stuff and the leadership change. Now I’m back to thinking that I won’t hold my breath. I think the left will win by luck and good fortune rather than Labour getting its shit together, and then if/when they do win our jobs will be to hold them accountable. It’s not hopeless, but it’s all such a waste of time and effort when we don’t have that to spare.
        • weka 10.1.1.2

          3 January 2014 at 1:53 pm

          “Need a process moderated better than is possible here.”

          Do you mean facilitated or moderated?
          • Sacha 10.1.1.2.1

            3 January 2014 at 1:55 pm

            both
      • lprent 10.1.2

        3 January 2014 at 4:09 pm

        We’re probably better off doing this in a public place like ts than in a private space. Hashing out conflict in public isn’t the issue, it’s what we do with it from here that is important.

        Otherwise the issues just fester and cause larger problems later. While we do get the occasional person removing themselves from commenting on this site, it is more often because it has been sucking up far too much of their time than their getting wound up about a spat.

        Of course there are the people who commit self-immolation by moderator. But most of them seem more surprised than doing it deliberately.
11. Rosie 11

    3 January 2014 at 10:22 am

    The reply buttons seem to have gone a.w.o.l. This is a reply to stargazer at #1 who I quote

    “there are no tiers, no need for priority lists. and it’s just plain cruel to tell people to wait, and to dismiss their issues as boutique or “identity politics”.”

    Thank You.

    I don’t know if it’s because I was nurtured by (non related) hippies when I was young and forming my world views but I have always be drawn towards the concept of unity and working collectively to achieve a common goal, hence I’ve often been bemused by the amount of barriers and angst that I have observed at some points within the Left, once I made the Left my ideological home.

    I do understand the need for questioning points of view, and challenging them when they feel they don’t fit, or when new ideas need to come to light, – sometimes conflict can shape and form those new ideas.I see the purpose in conflict. But at what point does debate move from constructive into destructive?

    On New Years Day I woke up feeling a new sense of hope. (an incredibly rare feeling) I linked a very positive anthemic song to illustrate the power of collective work and said “we can do it!” I had to smile when a bit later on there was an image of Ms Riveter, the embodiment of “we can do it” and a a wonderful post by QOT. That good feeling didn’t last long after reading the comments section though.

    What a crap start to the year when we have so much work to, and it’s the kind of work that requires unity in order to be successful!

    So to come back to your statement stargazer, I really really hope the good, wise and intelligent folks that are members of TS community can find a way to minimise their differences and maximise their talent.There’s an abundance of it and it must be harnessed.
12. Morrissey 12

    3 January 2014 at 10:27 am

    Radio NZ’s grossly substandard new “Middle East correspondent”
    He ran rings around Caitlin Cherry this morning
    Friday 3 January 2014

    Radio New Zealand has a shameful history of employing extremely biased commentators on the middle east. Both Kathryn Ryan and Bryan Crump continue to go to the egregious trio of Liat Collins, Lana Shaheen and Irris Makler, and at other times Radio New Zealand National uses the sardonic ex-BBC hack Simon Marks and a string of Daily Telegraph and CNN “journalists”, none of them a credible or reliable source of information or opinion. [1]

    This morning, long-suffering listeners were introduced to the latest in this partisan, solidly pro-Israel lineup: its new “Middle East correspondent”, Blair Cunningham.

    Any eternal optimists out there who might have harboured some hope for this latest addition to the roster would be quickly disabused by checking on his recent work and having a look at his Twitter account.

    Back in March 16, 2012, Blair Cunningham drew praise from Cameron Slater for an extremely biased “report”, actually nothing more than acting as a megaphone for the Prime Minister, that he’d done about David Shearer…..
    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/03/a-good-summary/

    As can be seen by a quick visit to his Twitter account, Blair Cunningham is really getting down to some serious, insightful journalism in Israel….
    Israel pizza hut looks a-maz-ing (20 Nov)

    On November 7th, he was keen to share his admiration for one of the leading thinkers of our time….
    @pollyzm excellent inspiration today. ZM’s Polly says we are passive observers. “Do anything but nothing.” Perfect given this week
    https://twitter.com/BriskyBlair

    Blair Cunningham is, in other words, exactly the kind of “talent” that fits in perfectly with the Hoskings, Smiths, Lackwit-Williamses, Russells and ohoWmads at NewstalkZB, where Cunningham continues to work as a “reporter”. Unfortunately for more intelligent and discerning radio listeners, who expect a higher standard than extended racist rants, expressions of admiration for Communist China’s repressive policies and endless plugs for Sky City, Cunningham has also scored a choice gig as Radio NZ’s “middle east correspondent.”

    The U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is trotting off to Israel to—try not to laugh bitterly here— “attempt to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.”

    The obscenity of that cruel falsehood is obvious to anyone who knows anything about the situation in the Occupied Territories—but it didn’t seem to worry Radio NZ National’s Summer Report host Caitlin Cherry this morning. She repeated that ridiculous pat formulation without demur, and then crossed to “our Middle East correspondent Blair Cunningham”.

    Caitlin Cherry evidently knows next to nothing about the situation in the Occupied Territories, but she’s obviously twigged that this is a subject that has to be treated with the utmost trepidation, even if one knows fuck-all about it….

    CAITLIN CHERRY: [with as much solemnity as she can muster] Many have tried to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. What are the chances of this succeeding?

    Cunningham began his “report” by noting that “Mr Kerry’s thoughts are for the family” of the ailing Ariel Sharon. He then observed that Kerry will be visiting “Ramallah in the West Bank”. Throughout his spiel, he studiously made sure that he never once mentioned the crucial word: “occupied”.

    Caitlin Cherry knows next to nothing, but she clearly felt she had to say something….

    CAITLIN CHERRY: [with maximum solemnity] Obviously both sides are expected to make large concessions….

    Cunningham cynically said nothing to disabuse either the bewildered Cherry or the listeners. He is exactly the sort of uncritical empty vessel that Israel wants “reporting” to overseas outlets like Radio New Zealand….

    [1] http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-29032011/#comment-314173
    • swordfish 12.1

      3 January 2014 at 8:07 pm

      Yeah, this never-bloody-ending so-called “peace-process” has always been about Israel and its Super-Power sponsor bullying a compliant/dependent PA into abrogating fundamental Palestinian rights under International Law by accepting the “Separation Wall’ – built deep inside Palestinian Territory – as the permanent border. And if Israel can’t do that, then, as always, it at the very least buys more time for expanding the settlement-building and consequent ethnic-cleansing (while minimising outside criticism/sanctions).

      The ignorance/compliance in so much of the western media is really quite something to behold. The US/Israel contrive the official narrative, the MSM cheerfully regurgitate it.
      • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1

        3 January 2014 at 9:51 pm

        Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land

        It’s no accident that the Western media fails to tell the true story of what is happening in Palestine.
        • swordfish 12.1.1.1

          3 January 2014 at 11:27 pm

          Cheers for that, Draco. I’ll definitely watch that right through when I’ve got time in the next day or two. Looks excellent.
      • Morrissey 12.1.2

        4 January 2014 at 10:53 am

        The ignorance/compliance in so much of the western media is really quite something to behold.

        Governments, whether in Israel or the United States or the United Kingdom or Russia or China or New Zealand, depend on cynical “correspondents” like Blair Cunningham and, even more importantly, on empty vessels like Caitlin Cherry.
13. chris73 13

    3 January 2014 at 10:31 am

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/01/a_damning_critique_of_the_so_called_living_wage.html

    – Interesting points brought up such as basic necessity costs including Sky TV, pets, international travel and video games
    • Lanthanide 13.1

      3 January 2014 at 11:00 am

      The living wage is meant to be a wage upon which you can live and have a reasonable life. Not a subsistence level survival (minimum wage). So it is sensible to include standard entertainment costs as part of the calculation.
      • chris73 13.1.1

        3 January 2014 at 11:05 am

        Good luck selling international travel as basic necessity costs also:

        Only 12% of low income households are two adults and two dependents, which the Waldegrave calculation is based on

        and

        The calculation includes insurance for dwellings and mortgages, despite assuming they are renting

        It seems…shonkey to say the least
        • Lanthanide 13.1.1.1

          3 January 2014 at 11:10 am

          Once again, it is not supposed to cover only “basic necessity costs”. $18.40 at a full time of 2080 hours a year only comes to $38,272, which is $591 per week after 3% kiwisaver, tax and assuming no student loan. You’d be hard-pressed to take a family of 4 to Oz on a single wage at that level; although 2 parents earning that amount could probably manage it without too much hardship.

          Further, if only 12% may have 2 adults and 2 dependents, which suggests that many more low income households will have 1 adults and 2+ dependents, or 2 adults and 2+ dependents, in which case argueing about all of these unnecessary ‘extras’ makes you look quite foolish, because the money to provide those ‘extras’ that you argue aren’t necessary for 2A/2C families, but will start to go towards necessities in the other situations. Unless you’re suggesting that workers get paid a wage that is dependent on the number of children they have…

          As for insurance for people who are renting, it really depends on the basis on which the calculation was done. Because most rental properties will be insured and the landlords will be passing this cost on to the renters. If the cost of insurance goes up by 30% in a year, as has recently been happening, that raise is generally passed on to the occupants in rent increases. Breaking that out as a separate costed item will better help to account for those increases.

          So on the face of it, that does seem dodgy, but actually investigating further is needed to really say whether it’s inappropriate or not. Given the simple mistakes already made re: entertainment and the number of dependents in a family, I don’t hold all that much faith that the ‘insurance for renters’ issue will also hold up under scrutiny.
          • chris73 13.1.1.1.1

            3 January 2014 at 11:16 am

            While the living wage is good in theory it probably needed to go into greater detail and be less vague
            • Lanthanide 13.1.1.1.1.1

              3 January 2014 at 11:18 am

              Hard to disagree with that – nearly everything should be more detailed and less vague.
              • Lanthanide …

                3 January 2014 at 1:00 pm

                Including National’s statements about where 180,000 new jobs are going to come from, and exactly what is “a brighter future”, etc.
            • RedBaronCV 13.1.1.1.1.2

              3 January 2014 at 11:40 am

              $591 per week is the rent, the power, food – $250, $50 and $300. And remind me , why do low income earners have to justify their need for every dollar when high income earners don’t have to justify theirs? Different standards or tests of behaviour surely.
              • chris73 …

                3 January 2014 at 11:45 am

                “Why do low income earners have to justify their need for every dollar when high income earners don’t have to justify theirs?”

                – They don’t but no ones pushing for high-wage earners to get more money which will come out of the tax we all pay
                • Pascal's bookie …

                  3 January 2014 at 11:52 am

                  Higher salaries commission much?
                • wtl …

                  3 January 2014 at 11:57 am

                  Actually, high income earners like council CEOs are continually getting more money (out of the taxes that we all pay), are you equally opposed to such pay increases?
                  • chris73 …

                    3 January 2014 at 1:07 pm

                    Actually yes which is why I’m hoping Dalziel can do something with the CCC salaries
                • RedBaronCV …

                  3 January 2014 at 12:05 pm

                  Maybe I was not clear – high income earners should have to justify why they have funds and use resources so in excess of their basic needs or lose it? Now that would be interesting.

                  As to your assertation that “getting more money comes out of the tax we all pay” –
                  increased wages come from the employer, tax is paid on those wages and as wages go up the amount paid in WFF/other benefits decreases. So the employer pays less tax at 28 cents, the employee pays more at 28c to 33c (treasury win, employee win, employer loss) and WFF decreases (treasury win).

                  Us taxpayers are onto a winner with this one, so remind me why don’t the right support it?
                  • Hitch64 …

                    3 January 2014 at 12:48 pm

                    Agree employer loses. These are the people that the cost falls on. This is OK if the business is making good profits, but there are a lot of small businesses out there who aren’t in this category & the extra wage cost is something they could be concerned about.
                    • RedBaronCV …

                      3 January 2014 at 9:34 pm

                      So far it is voluntary which protects all employers. Yes, some small businesses would struggle with it although many use family labour. If wage rates were two dollars an hour some businesses would still struggle. If changes are voluntary/ legislated for gradually then structural adjustment can take place. If higher wages were aimed at profitable employers (say the banks) then there needs to be other measures around gouging monopoly rents with price increases.
                • Draco T Bastard …

                  3 January 2014 at 4:59 pm

                  They don’t but no ones pushing for high-wage earners to get more money which will come out of the tax we all pay

                  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10794629
                  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9460393/Pay-top-state-bosses-even-more-report

                  Yeah, you’re obviously living on Planet Key.
      • infused 13.1.2

        3 January 2014 at 11:22 am

        I earn… a lot… and I still can’t afford to travel overseas.
        • fender 13.1.2.1

          3 January 2014 at 12:48 pm

          You may need to adopt the strict spending discipline beneficiaries do in order to keep themselves from living on the streets. Maybe reconsider that expensive gym membership or something..
        • Lanthanide 13.1.2.2

          3 January 2014 at 12:53 pm

          Bollocks. You could afford to travel overseas if you wanted to. It would mean spending less money on other things that you currently spend money on.
    • millsy 13.2

      3 January 2014 at 11:19 am

      If Farrar wants wages held down, why doesnt he just admit it.

      All he has to say on his blog is:

      “Workers should not get high wages at all. Wages and conditions for all workers really need to be held down, and, in some cases, cut. Workers earn way too much money and should only get enough money to pay their rent and a few packets of 2 minute noodles. They should also lose their sick leave and paid holidays This is to ensure that inflation is kept within the 0-2% band and interest rates are kept affordable for mortage holders”.
      • chris73 13.2.1

        3 January 2014 at 11:35 am

        Why don’t you just come out say you hate kittens and puppies, all you have to say is you think they’re not cute, fluffy and adorable and that NZ would be better off without them
        • McFlock 13.2.1.1

          3 January 2014 at 6:41 pm

          Ah, so if I interpret your delphic reference to kittens correctly, Farrar deliberately avoids saying what he really wants because his true opinions would disgust and alienate the majority of NZers?

          I agree, that is why he obscures his true loathing for workers.
      • joe90 13.2.2

        3 January 2014 at 11:40 am

        The column Farrar would write.

        http://colombiareports.co/colombias-minimum-wage-is-too-high/
      • Saarbo 13.2.3

        3 January 2014 at 12:30 pm

        Yes, Farrar must be incredibly proud of himself publicising this. When I was a finance manager for a large corporate I was instructed to annually budget for 2% to 3% wage increase for “the workers” and 5% for management salaries. This was during the 90’s, these are the years during which inequality really grew.

        I struggle to understand how people who criticise the living wage think, just do the maths…once you take away rental cost from your income you are left with sweet f.a.
        • Lanthanide 13.2.3.1

          3 January 2014 at 12:57 pm

          Seems pretty unfair, since managers would be starting on higher salaries already.
      • thechangeling 13.2.4

        3 January 2014 at 3:31 pm

        [deleted]

        [lprent: Advocating violence in any way will get you banned from this site. ]
    • joe90 13.3

      3 January 2014 at 11:37 am

      Is Brian ‘842 votes’ Scott the author?.

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/letters-to-the-editor/9517507/Letter-Living-wage-study-riddled-with-flaws

      http://www.vote.co.nz/2013/candidates/brian-scott-10199
      • Pascal's bookie 13.3.1

        3 January 2014 at 2:32 pm

        dunno, but according the bio in his little paper ha has a “batchelor” degree with honours in bidniz shizzle. I’m picking this hasn’t been anything even faintly resembling peer reviewed. But it comes to the ‘right’ conclusion so the usuals will pimp it.
      • joe90 13.3.2

        3 January 2014 at 5:08 pm

        Look whose stickies are all over it.

        Brian scott (1 comment) says:
        January 3rd, 2014 at 12:02 pm
        I would be remiss if I did not mention that Lindsay Mitchell reviewed drafts and gave me valuable feedback. Thanks Lindsay.
    • QoT 13.4

      3 January 2014 at 11:59 am

      You’re absolutely right, chris. I applaud David Farrar for now advocating that our government invest serious resources in determining a raft of 1,500 different living wage rates to accommodate as wide a variety of circumstances as possible, and agreeing that the government should enforce those living wage rates.

      Oh wait. You mean it’s actually just nitpicking, because Farrar and his mates actually disagree with the concept of a living wage?

      I always love it when the left comes up with a fairly simple, generic way to deal with a serious problem in our society, and the right’s counter-argument would involve massive increases in government oversight and bureaucracy.
      • Draco T Bastard 13.4.1

        3 January 2014 at 5:14 pm

        and the right’s counter-argument would involve massive increases in government oversight and bureaucracy.

        Yeah, there’s a reason for that – it allows them to can it ASAP or just not put it in place with the excuse that it costs too much.
        • QoT 13.4.1.1

          3 January 2014 at 9:05 pm

          But that’s the thing, they don’t! They come up with ridiculous ideas like giving beneficiaries special credit cards to limit what they can buy, and then … the idea just goes away, and they never have to answer questions like “how the fuck are you ever going to manage that without massive loopholes and huge funding increases to MSD?”
          • Draco T Bastard 13.4.1.1.1

            3 January 2014 at 9:58 pm

            They come up with ridiculous ideas like giving beneficiaries special credit cards to limit what they can buy, and then … the idea just goes away,

            Well, that idea is in place and probably failing badly – haven’t heard anything about it lately.

            See, the thing about National is that they won’t attack their own ideas that increase bureaucracy and costs (Just look at the BS that Paula Bennet has added to WINZ). They’ll only attack them if they come from the left and they’ll add all sorts of BS that was never part of the idea to make it sound worse and more expensive which they never get called on from the MSM.
14. RedBaronCV 14

    3 January 2014 at 11:11 am

    These things are only for the likes of you? Colour you miserable. Looking at my budget the living wage isn’t going to be providing anything much beyond food, shelter, work related transport, doctors, school costs, clothes and not too much of all those things.
    BTW assuming you are being paid for this stirring, haven’t you been late for work over the holiday period?
    • chris73 14.1

      3 January 2014 at 11:17 am

      For what its worth I don’t have sky and don’t take overseas holidays but I don’t really consider sky and overseas holidays as being of vital importance

      Of course I’m being paid for this, don’t you know that nobody truly supports a right-wing agenda

      Oh well you know how it is so many things to do so little time to do them
      • Lanthanide 14.1.1

        3 January 2014 at 11:19 am

        The living wage is not about things of “vital importance”.
        • chris73 14.1.1.1

          3 January 2014 at 11:28 am

          No it isn’t but do you think that middle NZ will think that overseas holidays and Sky subscriptions is something that should be calculated for? Which means anyone pushing it is going to find it difficult to implement (unless you’re the WCC of course)
          • miravox 14.1.1.1.1

            3 January 2014 at 11:37 am

            Yes, I do think reasonable overseas travel should be included. I don’t think less than $500 return to Sydney (see AirNZ flights in June for e.g.) to see the new niece or nephew is outrageous – free accommodation by staying with the family. A person on a low income could easily pay more than that for a NZ holiday when the rellies have moved offshore for a brighter future.
            • chris73 14.1.1.1.1.1

              3 January 2014 at 11:41 am

              Fair enough
15. Blue 15

    3 January 2014 at 11:18 am

    Guys, I think the CV-bashing festival has gone on long enough. Starting the new year with a massive shitfight on the Standard is not a great way to begin an election year.

    Can we agree to disagree here? Because the debate between idealism and pragmatism is as old as the hills and it’s not going anywhere. We are not going to finally resolve it once and for all.

    CV and those who agreed with him have been thoroughly, massively and comprehensively shot down in flames over the past three days and I’m pretty sure there are many people now too scared to raise their heads above the parapet. You’ve made your point.

    This is a plea for peace on earth and goodwill amongst men and women.
    • infused 15.1

      3 January 2014 at 11:25 am

      Must have missed that whole fight. Damm.

      CV has some pretty interesting stuff to say sometimes, which I agree with a lot. And a lot I don’t. But then he goes around in funny circles. I’m sure whether that’s to troll or whatnot.
    • chris73 15.2

      3 January 2014 at 11:40 am

      Look CV had some good points to raise unfortunately he came up against someone who isn’t interested in someones else viewpoint (unless it mirrors their own) and chooses to ban rather then debate

      Which is fine when its their post
    • Red Blooded 15.3

      3 January 2014 at 11:43 am

      massive plus 1 to that Blue. “Can’t we all just get along”
    • BM 15.4

      3 January 2014 at 11:44 am

      Personally I don’t know why CV bothers with the Labour party.

      He’s Male, owns and runs a couple of businesses and wants to get things done instead of endlessly talking about bull shit for months/years on end, let’s be honest that’s not exactly labour material.

      Poor prick was probably being driven mad.
      • karol 15.4.1

        3 January 2014 at 2:07 pm

        I think the Labour Party should definitely be supporting small businesses. They struggle to survive in a corproate dominated world.

        I would expect CV is a person to get things done. He also spends one of the most frequent commenters on this site – done a lot of talking here.

        A time to talk…. a time to act……
    • Sacha 15.5

      3 January 2014 at 11:45 am

      “Can we agree to disagree here?”

      Yes. Successful political movements have processes for agreeing to disagree, and agreeing what to work on together. And they do not tolerate idiots blathering on after that agreement has been reached, until scheduled review points like annual policy processes or conferences. People need to grow up and act like it’s an election year.
    • fender 15.6

      3 January 2014 at 11:55 am

      You may be getting a little over emotional about this. Many here (me included) love CV and what he offers, it’s just hard to reconcile such a thoughtful comment he makes here ( ” it’s about the stuff which cuts to the bone and pressuring the parties on the Left to do more (in whichever policy field is the topic of the day), because so much more needs to be done in this nation.”) with the apparent dismissal inherent in what comes across as a dog-whistle when he uses “boutique identity politics” and the 5 min limit for discussing issues other than economics and climate change.
    • Zorr 15.7

      3 January 2014 at 11:56 am

      To repeat from Stargazer above:
      “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice… who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait.”

      Yeah, lets all just shut up about the politics of gender, race, sexual orientation, ablism etc etc because it is making people uncomfortable… and hey, it’s an election year, don’tcha know? Can you please just keep quiet and move to the back of the bus where you belong… and, oh yeah, don’t forget to vote for us. At least we let you on the bus.

      To put it simply, if this is the Labour that you want to elect, then John Key can go ahead and win again for all I care because at that point Labour no longer represents my interests. Give me free market capitalism from those with Hollow Hearts and Empty Minds over selling out my progressive vision for some token attempt at altering capitalism.
    • QoT 15.8

      3 January 2014 at 12:01 pm

      the CV-bashing festival

      Yes, you are definitely approaching this from a neutral perspective. 🙄
    • wtl 15.9

      3 January 2014 at 12:07 pm

      Agreed. Some of the stuff CV said (and has said in the past) was a little over the top, and he deserved to be called on it. However, even though he is taking a hiatus, there are those that are still attacking and sniping at him, which I think is quite unfair.
      • Sacha 15.9.1

        3 January 2014 at 12:09 pm

        what would be ‘fair’?
        • wtl 15.9.1.1

          3 January 2014 at 12:12 pm

          Not attacking and sniping at CV when he isn’t around.
          • Sacha 15.9.1.1.1

            3 January 2014 at 12:21 pm

            So anyone can spend weeks stirring and then voluntarily take a holiday and no one else is allowed to say anything while they’re gone? Nice try.
            • wtl 15.9.1.1.1.1

              3 January 2014 at 12:26 pm

              Is attacking CV really that important that you have to do it all the time? Is there really nothing that can be discussed without mentioning CV? If CV has spent weeks stirring surely the worst thing you can do is keep letting him interfering with the conversation when he isn’t even around?
              • Sacha …

                3 January 2014 at 12:41 pm

                All the time? Not me. Far more concerned about the process. However after the last few days I’m beginning to see why a certain political party may have had trouble with that guy thinking rules don’t apply.
                • wtl …

                  3 January 2014 at 12:53 pm

                  All the time? Not me.

                  Then why are you criticising what I said? If it doesn’t apply to you, then ignore it.

                  … that guy thinking rules don’t apply.

                  I fail to see how this applies to CV. On this recent occasion, he hasn’t been banned from this site or even been warned by the moderators. He followed the rules and butted out of QoT’s post once he was banned from it.
                  • Sacha …

                    3 January 2014 at 1:00 pm

                    “Then why are you criticising what I said?”
                    I’m criticising the notion that someone can stop a conversation in its tracks by leaving the room. That’s all. Nothing “all the time” about it. Perhaps you’re confusing me with others?

                    “He followed the rules and butted out of QoT’s post once he was banned from it.”
                    He tried commenting there again after being banned, actually. And coming to Open Mike and relitigating the matter isn’t much of a sign of acceptance either. But I don’t know the guy and it’s only the behaviour I’m noting.

                    I’d rather see people discussing how the left can work together constructively to win the election in about 6 months time.
                    • wtl …

                      3 January 2014 at 5:10 pm

                      I’m criticising the notion that someone can stop a conversation in its tracks by leaving the room…

                      If your conversation involves continuing to attack the person who has left the room, I would question the value of said conversation.
                  • QoT …

                    3 January 2014 at 1:16 pm

                    He followed the rules and butted out of QoT’s post once he was banned from it.

                    No, he didn’t. He jumped back in to respond to Sosoo:
                    http://thestandard.org.nz/its-2014-and-we-have-a-job-to-do/#comment-752086

                    And then left another comment which was deleted, saying: “Not supposed to comment on this thread under pain of death, but for the idiocy of Sosoo I could not help myself…”
                    • wtl …

                      3 January 2014 at 5:07 pm

                      No, he didn’t. He jumped back in to respond to Sosoo:

                      Fair enough, I stand corrected. He shouldn’t have done so and deserves to be criticised for that. I still don’t think he deserves all the further attacks on him, but I don’t suppose my opinion on the matter will change anything.
                    • QoT …

                      3 January 2014 at 9:06 pm

                      What further attacks? Because from my perspective, it’s been CV and KJT who have continued the argument in multiple threads here – and many of the “attacks” have been targeted firmly at me.
                    • karol …

                      3 January 2014 at 9:13 pm

                      Yep, QoT, and personalised attacks have continued towards the likes of you and me for the last 24hours, even while the claims have been that we are conducting the personalised persectution.

                      The double-think/contradictions are glaring.

                      Meanwhile the main points you raised in your post get avoided by many.

                      Thank-you, stargazer, for focusing some of us on the central arguments today
            • Treetop 15.9.1.1.1.2

              3 January 2014 at 12:33 pm

              Everyone needs to butt out and just leave Qot and CV to sort it out in their own way and in their own time. They both have a lot to contribute on topics each one is passionate about.
              • QoT …

                3 January 2014 at 1:18 pm

                No, Treetop. This isn’t a personal “QoT vs CV” debate. My post didn’t even mention CV, and he isn’t the only person whose behaviour and attitudes towards identity politics discussions I was criticising.

                This is a much wider issue and having it categorised as a personal spat is a bit shitty, given how many other people have commented to say they have seen the same things I’ve seen.
                • Treetop …

                  3 January 2014 at 3:05 pm

                  When it comes to identity politics how would you change the behaviour and attitude?

                  Are there some issues which you consider to be harder to change and why?
                  • QoT …

                    3 January 2014 at 4:43 pm

                    Well, I did just kinda try to kick off a discussion about how we create a wider strategy in which all the different issues we choose to focus on play a part.

                    But that kind of got shitcanned, so I’ll have to think about it.
                    • lprent …

                      3 January 2014 at 4:51 pm

                      Yeah it was unfortunate. Unfortunately holiday time is often not a good time to do that type of post. I’m not in my usual position of being planted in front of a computer for most of the day where I can mete out a behavioural adaptation early enough.

                      Mind you I didn’t pick that post to cause any particular problems… So I wasn’t even monitoring it when I was trying to write code for the site over the New Years eve hangover.

                      I’d suggest that you should use the “Moderate Post” option in the Edit Post screen when something does start going way off track with a post. That should be available to you and acts as a pretty good brake on things going too far off track. Does mean that moderating the post requires computer time though.

                      I’m pre-emptively doing it on Josie Pagani’s guest post.
                    • QoT …

                      3 January 2014 at 9:08 pm

                      It’s not that big a deal, lprent, I actually preferred the post going up when I knew I’d be at home in front of my computer to deal with it myself.

                      But now I think it’s very clearly established what kind of reception my posts get, I might use the function in future.
                    • lprent []

                      3 January 2014 at 9:20 pm

                      Yeah do so. I am not particularly worried about you removing my fun. But some charity when the trolls are light would be appreciated – so I can keep in practice. Don’t forget to write posts when the duckheads aren’t being fools on jet skis (or more likely dreaming of it)
                  • karol …

                    3 January 2014 at 4:50 pm

                    For myself, to beging with, I’d ditch the term “identity poltics” – it’s become too negatively loaded. The politcs of gender and sexuality are no more about “identity” than working class politics”. It’s about the politics of oppression, difference, disadvantage, privilege, patriarchy, … etc.

                    I already use the alternative terms most often.
                    • QoT …

                      3 January 2014 at 9:09 pm

                      I like it, and part of that is because I personally won’t let dudebros chase me away from a very important concept.

                      I also quite like some inroads we’ve been making on establishing that class is as much an “identity” as anything else.
                • Treetop …

                  4 January 2014 at 1:44 pm

                  The wider issue was not overlooked.
      • karol 15.9.2

        3 January 2014 at 2:09 pm

        And some are still attacking some others of us.
16. The Murphey 16

    3 January 2014 at 11:48 am

    Q: What is TURMOIL/TURBINE/QFIRE

    A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0w36GAyZIA
17. Hitch64 17

    3 January 2014 at 11:54 am

    chris73 raises a good point. The living wage has a lot of merit, but including an allowance for overseas travel means a lot of voters who think this is a good idea will likely not vote for it when National brings this issue up.
18. tricledrown 18

    3 January 2014 at 12:09 pm

    Sorry CV
    We on the left need to be careful not to hand ammunition to the right.
    Hooten and Key have already signalled that Labour are moving to the far left as part of their attack strategy.
    We on the left need to outsmart
    Nactionals CrosbyTextor strategy.
    The right have the Media in theirback pocket.
    We are better to change tack
    Not offer them one little tidbit
    Of ammunition to use against us
    This election is probably going to be one of the hardest fought elections in recent times.
    In 1981 the radical left of the labour party including myself pushed for socialist utopic policies Muldoon wasn’t that popular but the media storm over our radical policy agenda gave muldoon a free home run
    .
    Jim Anderton was the president of the labour party then and asked us to moderate until after the election we didn’t listen.
    So we ended up with Muldoon for another 3 years Douglas for 6 then bolger shipley for 9 years .
    18 years of right wing govt because we didn’t play a smart game.
    You have said in past comments that this is MMP and it doesn’t matter.
    Well how many times has HawaiiKey been compared to Muldoom on this site.
    Then add Crosby Textor MSM
    Hooten and HawaiiKey’s comments on labour moving to the far left.
    On the positive side your idea of
    Targeting the younger voters and therfore their parents on global warming is a very good idea very good.
    Young people are very concerned about our enviroment
    The don’t vote in large numbers
    This policy strategy would entice 18 to 30 yearolds to vote if we can get the message to them it will need a lot of work to get these nonparticipants to vote.
    Registering communicating
    through facebook twitter etc.
    CV IT have A lot of respect for you.
    It takes a lot of balls to run as a candidate in an election,To stand against blinglish in CluthaSouthland even more balls.
    But this election as I reiterate We are going to have to be very smart very careful.
    If the likes of the right have no ammunition to paint the picture of us on the left as say communists thenorth koreans etc which no doubt they will use then that’s one less stick to beat us with.
    Make no mistake they will use it at every opportunity.
    Again in the past under FPP it was largely Labour verses National.
    Today we have left verse’s right
    Branding within each cohort.
    We don’t need to be over competitive with each other we are all on the same side on the left block.
    We need to be a united team that can compete at every level vigorously against the right.
    Once again sorry CV.
    Let’s do everthing that is required to win this election.
19. captain hook 19

    3 January 2014 at 12:17 pm

    ITS OFFICIAL!
    four out of five new zealanders say that wail oil is inane!
    somebody pleeze do something immediately.
20. tricledrown 20

    3 January 2014 at 12:54 pm

    Zorr no one is saying that to effect change we need to win an election not run round sulking and dumping on each other.
    Focus on core policies and not
    let the right have the narrative.
    The liveable wage
    Affordable housing
    Enviromental issues
    ,Getting rid of poverty
    We on the left need to focus on our core policy not complicate it to much.
    Their are other core policies their to.
    But what’s brilliant about being in opposition is we can focus on the govts fuckups and weaknesses.
    Key lauding it up in Hawaii.
    While his poor little Minions can’t afford Sky Tv toyota prado overseas holidays.
    Make you wonder why they back a govt that is looking after the uber rich who are all on holidays living it up to the max .
    While poor c73Bminfused are left here explaining their untenable position.
    • Zorr 20.1

      3 January 2014 at 1:08 pm

      tricledrown – what *are* core policies though? Shouldn’t “equality for all regardless of X, Y and Z” be a core manifesto of any truly progressive party?

      You list a few there and it’s fair that you have your own priorities. The fact is though that CV suggested that anyone who prioritized (as he coined it) “boutique identity politics” was undermining the larger push by the Left and he has never stepped back from this. It isn’t about haranguing him until he “comes around to my way of thinking” but if he is going to be the kind of jerk that expects others to give way to his personal priorities with no understanding of what they give up when they do, then he can go rot.

      For all that people seem to want this to just go away, it isn’t. We need to confront the fact that everyone needs to compromise – it’s just that people like CV don’t appear to be used to it. We all have competing interests but, because of that, we should be ever more accommodating to listening to each other and understanding rather than railroading and ignoring.

      Next time this crops up or, even now, go back over it with an eye for seeing how much effort it takes to stand up to CV compared to how easy it is for him to maintain his position. At the end of all this, his position is still defended by others and the hope seems to be that this whole kerfuffle just gets swept away and forgotten in the rush of an election year. Thereby maintaining the status quo of the Left.

      Screw that.
21. phillip ure 21

    3 January 2014 at 1:11 pm

    i am now in full censorship/deleting-mode from qot..

    ..and i think i now am officially a new mortal-enemy of the qot-crew..

    (they were lining up to take a swipe/throw an insult my way..)

    ..and i am going to link to that thread from whoar..

    ..i was accused of ‘incoherent-derailing’..

    ..so i will let my 22,000+ subscribers/readers decide where the ‘incoherence’ lies..

    ..with the headline title all that’s left to be decided..

    ..and really..the (only?) laugh-out-loud moment on that thread was the cartman-quote/riff being recycled..eh..?

    ..oh..!..and btw..frank..i said chrs to you for yr thanks for the link to the libertarian to socialist story..

    ..but it was also censored/deleted..

    .so..’chrs frank’..

    ..and..did someone say there is a caption-contest somewhere..?

    ..i need some light-relief..

    phillip ure.
    • weka 21.1

      3 January 2014 at 1:27 pm

      “i am now in full censorship/deleting-mode from qot..”

      [citation needed] (esp seeing as how you were able to post here).
      • Sacha 21.1.1

        3 January 2014 at 1:29 pm

        don’t give the sad character any more oxygen to waste
        • phillip ure 21.1.1.1

          3 January 2014 at 1:50 pm

          “.. sad character..”

          heh..!..how did you know..?

          ..have you heard my existential-howls into the void..?

          ..you just keep on staying ‘classy’ there..eh sacha..?

          ..(but seriously..?..serial personal abuse is what you get/deserve for trying to argue against the concept/realities of censorship..?..whoar..!..)

          ..and i do kinda get an irony-twitch when i consider that those arguing loudest for censorship..

          ..those who demand that others will ‘respect my authority – as a moderator!’..

          ..also have as a major complaint..their being ‘silenced’ by others..

          ..i know..!..i know..!..)

          ..phillip ure..
          • Sacha 21.1.1.1.1

            3 January 2014 at 1:52 pm

            sob
    • veutoviper 21.2

      3 January 2014 at 2:16 pm

      Hang in there, PU. Some of us appreciate your comments including your unique commenting style.

      I have not commented on what has been happening on this blog the last few days, nor am I going to get into the details of it – other than to say that I endorse the comments of Rosie @ 10, Blue @1.4, Olwyn @ 1.4.2, and Bill @ 1.6.

      While I was initially impressed and supportive of QOT’s 2014 post, what then ensued in the comments under that post and in the OM’s yesterday and today leaves me disappointed and disillusioned in terms of their toxicity * and venom to anyone who had differing views. This is not the TS I have come to know – and currently it is not a blogsite I want to be part of.

      * EDIT As a woman, I change that to “bitchiness” – because that is what it has been for the most part and continues to be, as demonstrated by weka and sacha’s replies to this comment of yours. It reminds me of teenage girls, not adult women – and makes me ashamed to be of the same gender.
      • weka 21.2.1

        3 January 2014 at 2:27 pm

        And so it goes on.

        How exactly is it bitchy for me to ask phil to provide some evidence that he is “now in full censorship/deleting-mode from qot..” ? It’s not an unreasonable request and is done routinely on ts. I think he is overstating the case considerably, but am willing to be proved wrong, hence my request.
        • chris73 21.2.1.1

          3 January 2014 at 2:32 pm

          As a neutral observer the attacks on CV were disproportionate to what he said (imho)
          • McFlock 21.2.1.1.1

            3 January 2014 at 7:12 pm

            that’s nice. Irrelveant to the comments above, though.

            Oh, and a mutual enemy isn’t “neutral”. It simply takes shots at whichever side is stronger.
      • phillip ure 21.2.2

        3 January 2014 at 2:37 pm

        chrs veutoviper..

        phillip ure..
      • Sacha 21.2.3

        3 January 2014 at 2:38 pm

        Checking email notifications, of yesterday’s 95 comments on the “2014 and we have a job to do” thread, 23 were by Phil and 17 were direct replies to him.

        I figure when someone keeps on talking after dominating 42% of a conversation and they’re not listening to reason, ridicule is the next option. What would you suggest?

        What really reminds me of teenagers is the whining that everyone must listen to every word I feel like saying and no one is allowed to impinge on my ‘freedom’ or it’s censorship by those big bad grown-ups.
    • enjoy every sandwich 21.3

      3 January 2014 at 2:57 pm

      @ phillip ure: it is toxic here and Qot, karol, weka, fender etc not admitting their part in it doesn’t help. Good on you and people like CV, KJT, veutoviper for standing up against the toxic climate they have created here.
      • fender 21.3.1

        3 January 2014 at 3:18 pm

        Gawd, you are getting desperate. I won’t be swallowing your shit sandwich nor accept that I’m responsible for some imagined toxic climate here. I actually have much respect and love for CV, hence the urge for him to take on board the excellent advice from Rhinocrates here , here , here and here
        • enjoy every sandwich 21.3.1.1

          3 January 2014 at 3:49 pm

          That’s not excellent advice from Rhino, it’s shitty advice that will alienate many potential left voters.
          Something that Rhino and QoT have in common is that they’re both love bleating on about their own personal experiences to all and sundry about the prejudices they have suffered. I usually don’t mind (although I can’t help thinking how self-absorbed they are), but now QoT et al have used that as an excuse to censor people, to accuse them of imagined bigotry and to create a hostile climate for no good reason.

          As I have said above, many people have suffered prejudice but that doesn’t make them demand that everyone else cater to their personal situation when discussing things that effect everyone. That’s madness.
          • fender 21.3.1.1.1

            3 January 2014 at 4:11 pm

            Tat Loo (CV) has political aspirations so IMO Rhinocrates had great advice for him. I’ve only ever wished Tat the best of luck ( I even asked him to relocate to my electorate so I could vote for him) because I can tell he is switched on and not a dictator.

            Everyone is allowed an opinion, it’s healthy, but I’ll not offer mine for a while in case I’m accused of this toxic stuff you speak of.
            • Rosie 21.3.1.1.1.1

              3 January 2014 at 5:13 pm

              If you don’t mind me saying fender, I don’t know how you could ever be accused of being toxic mi amigo.

              Right now though, I’m off, it’s too hot in here.

              Solidarity, to all and with you all.
          • phillip ure 21.3.1.1.2

            3 January 2014 at 4:13 pm

            @..ees…

            ..”.. many people have suffered prejudice but that doesn’t make them demand that everyone else cater to their personal situation when discussing things that effect everyone. That’s madness..”

            + 1..

            ..you just succinctly said what i was thrashing about trying to say..(at which i obviously failed..after expending much energy/words..that is it..in a nutshell..)

            ..where were you when we needed you…way back..?

            ..and yep..!..that’s what was doing my head in..

            ..the seeming demand that everything must be filtered through that personal-experience..

            ..and that if you didn’t..no matter what yr previously loudly-repeated/shouted support for all those policies called for by the censors..

            ..you become ‘the enemy”..

            ..that too..is ‘madness’..

            phillip ure..
            • enjoy every sandwich 21.3.1.1.2.1

              3 January 2014 at 4:23 pm

              ..the seeming demand that everything must be filtered through that personal-experience..

              ..and that if you didn’t..no matter what yr previously loudly-repeated/shouted support for all those policies called for by the censors..

              ..you become ‘the enemy”..

              exactly, phil.
            • phillip ure 21.3.1.1.2.2

              3 January 2014 at 4:24 pm

              and as for those calls/demands that censorship is ‘necessary’..

              i’ll hand over to pitt the younger..

              “..“necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.

              It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

              phillip ure..
          • QoT 21.3.1.1.3

            3 January 2014 at 4:48 pm

            they’re both love bleating on about their own personal experiences

            Actually I blog very rarely about my personal experiences, since I’m well aware that I’m in a comparatively privileged position in society. But let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good whinge.
            • enjoy every sandwich 21.3.1.1.3.1

              3 January 2014 at 7:10 pm

              Oh yeah QoT, we hardly knew thee…

              What you’ve just said doesn’t match up with what you said earlier though..

              “The personal is political” is an incredibly important idea. I’m not going to throw it out just because more privileged people can’t get over the fact that some discussions aren’t about their personal lives.

              Pretty confused philosophy you’ve got there.

              Also:
              Actually I blog very rarely about my personal experiences, since I’m well aware that I’m in a comparatively privileged position in society.

              Why do only underprivileged people get to blog about their experiences?
              • QoT …

                3 January 2014 at 9:11 pm

                You’ll have much better luck getting answers to questions which are based in reality.
      • veutoviper 21.3.2

        3 January 2014 at 3:26 pm

        And good on you also, ees, as I have followed your comments, The pity is that, as you say, “Qot, karol, weka, fender etc not admitting their part in it doesn’t help” – and in fact, part of my disillusionment is that in the past, I have had a lot of respect for their views although not always agreeing totally.
        • enjoy every sandwich 21.3.2.1

          3 January 2014 at 3:58 pm

          cheers veutoviper, I have a similar view.
22. joe90 22

    3 January 2014 at 1:59 pm

    My 2 cents: what CV could have said – gains made by various groups within the larger movement will not in themselves be enough – but no, he went all condescending twit from Manistan and deigned other peoples causes and priorities boutique, you know, all chintzy and nice to have fluffy stuff that sparkles and makes for happy happy but not really that important, and QoT quite rightly delivered a swift and well deserved kick to the slats.

    Which is where it may well have ended had CV not come back for more and got himself properly beaten up and then chucked out so he’s doing what one tends to do after a savaging, taken to his kennel to lick his sore bits and have a wee think about how he could get it so wrong.

    I’m sorry dude, self inflicted and no sympathy from me but if you’re the man I think you are you’ll be suitably chastised and back soon enough.
23. tricledrown 23

    3 January 2014 at 2:01 pm

    Zorr I’m not advocating for my policy preferences
    I meant to use them as examples of our core policies
    We need to focus on core policy its very similat to what CV was saying.
    But bringing in lybia not agood idea.
    Philip I am only suggesting we need to focus on core policy these were just examples.
    But I am not censoring any body but saying we need to have very smart strategy till after the election.
    The left all want rid of poverty
    Equal rights pay oportunity for all genders.
    We need to identify our policy
    Not release to much detail as C73 suggests as the right will steal it or rubbish it.
    If we are going to win this election the left are going get out and talk and convince voters Not convince a few dedicated activists on our blog sites.
    • chris73 23.1

      3 January 2014 at 2:23 pm

      Well if you’re going to listen to me then we’ll all be going to hell in a handbasket 🙂

      (No reason for the link I just like the song)
      • joe90 23.1.1

        3 January 2014 at 2:35 pm

        Me too.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmt6OyRqb8A&feature=artist
24. Ennui 24

    3 January 2014 at 2:21 pm

    I am with Blue, there has been a serious bashing of CV (as opposed to reasonable disagreement). And that is because the main protagonists are using a power position….the power they garner through sitting long behind the screen, longer than anybody else has or can be bothered giving. Its a form of volume, shout and keep shouting. Bullying from a remote position because they know the person on the blog cannot look them in the eye and demand to be treated in a civil manner. Point this out and all hell breaks loose, cries of troll and worse.

    A few years back I got hooked blogging here and it became detrimental to my work, home life and state of mind. Prism pointed out it was best to leap in on occasion, thanks Grey for that advice. I wont engage in a full time battle with Karol, Weka or Q, nor their acolytes because to me they have missed the point. Other people are allowed opinions.

    You have to wonder how these good souls can afford the time: I see them on line whilst I am working and don’t have the time to comment. I see them on line on good days when the garden or the river beckons. I see them on line when I have a glance late at night before I sleep. For fekk sake, how can I treat their opinions with any respect when they appear to never leave the keyboard, go for walk, have a coffee with a mate and chew the fat with a real person?

    Guys, take a breather, it irks me that people might think that you by dint of voluminous blogging are representative of the Left.
    • greywarbler 24.1

      3 January 2014 at 4:10 pm

      Ennui+1
      I care about TS and what people say here and find I can easily spend too much time to the detriment of my own chores but I did hate getting sandbagged at one time. It shouldn’t be boring with the same points repeated ad infinitum this year, I hope. Look forward to you dropping in Ennui.

      It is obvious that the problem now is to get one’s head around the idea of apparently exponential rise in dangerous heat and effects and to understand that it won’t just be violent things occasionally overseas. Such as tornadoes regularly that wipe people’s homes and wealth accumulation out, fires, drought etc that are coming close to home, ie Oz (in Waikato they are already on water allocation and summer hasn’t started). At the same time we have a financial system that is malfunctioning and just when we need to say – as Rutherford said ““We haven’t got the money, so we’ve got to think!” we have pollies encouraging people to think it is okay to run away from the challenges.

      It’s inward-looking just to be concentrating on people policies with costs to come from government coffers as these have to go hand in hand with economic policy.
    • chris73 24.2

      3 January 2014 at 4:26 pm

      Words of wisdom
      • Anne 24.2.1

        3 January 2014 at 8:22 pm

        Words of wisdom indeed Chris 73 from Ennui and greywarbler.

        Ennui, please keep coming here. It’s a place of learning and you have so much to teach. And throw a tanty or two from time to time. Imo, it make’s life fun and worth while.
    • wtl 24.3

      3 January 2014 at 5:05 pm

      And that is because the main protagonists are using a power position….

      I also find it ironic that it seems to me to be an expression of ‘dominance’ on their part.
    • karol 24.4

      3 January 2014 at 5:20 pm

      Ennui, I agree – people should take a breather.

      By way of reply to your and some recent comments: I see misinformed, off target attacks coming my way.

      You do realise, don’t you, that CV is one of the most frequent commenters on this site, and just before he took a break, I had real difficulty keeping up with his comments directed to me and others?

      You do realise he also has a very strong presence on this blog and within the Labour Party?

      I have respect for his views and knowledge on many things, and I hope he is back here commenting before too long. We disagree on some topics/politics and approaches.

      In the last 24 hours or so, there’s been a steady stream of people continuing with this “witchhunt” to use your term, against some of us who talk critically, on occasions about the politics of gender and sexuality.

      I’m trying to step back from it – but I keep seeing all this misinformation being perpetuated, some of it about me.

      As far as I can see, some people will never accept some of us spending a small part of our time providing some critical comments/discussion on gender and sexuality and the politics thereof, without being constantly told/implied we should keep quiet about it.

      That is the issue.

      Can we get back to the central and relevant topic – about the kind of politics we are interested in, and how to talk about them?
      • Ennui 24.4.1

        3 January 2014 at 7:18 pm

        K, if I could buy you a coffee I would! Yes, I should have included CV, he needs to allow other bloggers space. At some point we all need to walk away and recover, refresh and reconsider. That was the wisdom Greywarbler offered me.

        And yes, we can get back to the central topic. I am out of motivation to go toe to toe for another 15 rounds.
        • Anne 24.4.1.1

          3 January 2014 at 8:27 pm

          Karol. You’re not the problem. You go out of your way to be reasonable and just with everyone. We may not always agree, but I (and others) appreciate your honesty and fairness – and your incredible breadth of knowledge.
          • karol 24.4.1.1.1

            3 January 2014 at 9:14 pm

            Thanks, Anne – hope you have had a pleasant start to the calendar year.
    • stargazer 24.5

      3 January 2014 at 7:25 pm

      “there has been a serious bashing of CV (as opposed to reasonable disagreement)”

      and yet CV was the one who made a personal attack on deborah russell, commented about her workplace and how her colleagues see her, without any proof whatsoever. nobody here has talked about CV in any context other than the things he has said here, and the way he has said them. no-one has commented on his workplace or his personal life. we have called him to account for some particularly nasty comments to many others here which went way beyond mere “reasonable disagreement”. but somehow you seem to be willing to ignore all of that and treat this as some kind of witch-hunt.

      and if other people are allowed opinions, then why are you complaining about weka, karol, QoT and others expressing theirs? it appears that you only want people who agree with you to have the right to express opinions, without having to face any kind of response. it’s not going to happen.
      • Ennui 24.5.1

        3 January 2014 at 8:03 pm

        Star, because somebody sins must we sin against them? A little introspection goes a long way. As I said I am out of motivation to carry this fight on, neither side has a monopoly on virtue or rectitude..
        • stargazer 24.5.1.1

          3 January 2014 at 8:17 pm

          how have we sinned against them? i don’t agree that anyone has sinned against CV at all. we’ve responded, and as far as i’m concerned, it’s been in an entirely reasonable fashion. and that “neither side” line sounds pretty much like a cop-out to me.
          • Ennui 24.5.1.1.1

            3 January 2014 at 8:25 pm

            CV may have done what several accused him of…this reaction in my opinion was over the top and pursued unreasonably. That is my viewpoint to which I am entitled. You are welcome to disagree, meanwhile I disengage.
            • veutoviper 24.5.1.1.1.1

              3 January 2014 at 8:29 pm

              Well said, Ennui – and also in you comment at 24.
            • stargazer 24.5.1.1.1.2

              3 January 2014 at 9:37 pm

              you keep using that word unreasonably and reasonable, and yes it is just your opinion because you’ve failed to show how any of the other commentors here attacked CV personally, in the way that he has attacked others. everything i’ve read, and believe me, i’ve taken the time to read up all the various threads, show people people talking about CV’s language, his arguments, the way he operates here on this site. i can’t see what’s unreasonable about that.
              • Lanthanide …

                3 January 2014 at 10:12 pm

                I think CV has started treating TS a bit like his own personal soapbox / policy platform, ever since he outed himself as a Labour candidate.
    • enjoy every sandwich 24.6

      3 January 2014 at 8:01 pm

      Great comment Ennui. And the concept that being glued to TS all day, every day might just have a detrimental effect on their perspective hasn’t seemed to enter their heads.
      • Ennui 24.6.1

        3 January 2014 at 8:18 pm

        Not such a great comment: rather an observation that is born out by the evidence. It does not give me any great pleasure to make the statement, it is certainly not designed to antagonise.
25. greywarbler 25

    3 January 2014 at 5:25 pm

    Standout news.

    NYTimes calling for clemency Edward Snowden.

    Key playing with Obama on golf course (talking about defence? and close ties – are we to choose between USA and China?) Is there a requirement that all our PMs have golf-playing capability.

    UK youngsters feeling they have nothing to live for, unemployment critical factor.

    Cuts in student allowance for older NZs. Not allowing action to be taken to upskill, and get current education for people who left school around mid last century.
26. greywarbler 26

    3 January 2014 at 5:41 pm

    lprent
    I don’t know if it’s just me. But I usually have to make a two-touch trip from right hand list to chosen comment. I click the choice, the page moves to top of the comments thread ((not always the right one) and there I sit. I then have to click again on right hand to be taken to comment.
    But
    Sometimes between the first click on rhand list and then wanting to go back and click same one again, it has vanished. It’s as if it moves back to an earlier list and the latest ones vanish. To bring them back I have to refresh. This makes it slow to move around and check on replies etc.
    • marty mars 26.1

      3 January 2014 at 7:09 pm

      Is it because the comments at the top of the list haven’t finished going up yet – still waiting on the counter to count down and when they finish counting down, the comment is visible. May be different if logged in.

      [lprent: it is. You get less caching if you are logged in. ]
      • greywarbler 26.1.1

        3 January 2014 at 9:17 pm

        Ah ha. Roger! 10-4?
27. greywarbler 27

    3 January 2014 at 6:06 pm

    Go for it. Just what are you achieving with all your scrapping. Jumping on every remark that rubs up against your sensitive hides. Are you matches that flame up at a touch? Wouldn’t pass OSH controls. Bloody boring and pathetic the lot of you. You can ignore that or turn around and flame me out of your dragon mouths. I don’t care.
    • Ennui 27.1

      3 January 2014 at 8:54 pm

      Time for a rugby story,,,when I was a boy I madly watched the 71 Lions, who beat the ABs in NZ by way of powerful scrummaging and Barry Johns boot. Fabulous side.

      The ABs were captained by Meads, locking the NZ scrum so often in reverse. At one scrum Sean Lynch, a powerful Irish Lion bulldozed forward, capitulating the ABs into high speed reverse. “Hows that for scrummaging?” Lynch taunted Meads.

      The reply from Meads was “Very impressive Sean, by the way, while you were doing that we just scored a try!”

      Sounds like the last few days, mayhaps the Right has us on the run.
      • greywarbler 27.1.1

        3 January 2014 at 9:15 pm

        No it’s a feint on our part, not a faint.
28. Tracey 28

    3 January 2014 at 6:08 pm

    This gave me the biggest laugh of the day. Thanks chris. Whose emperor still has no clothes

    ” As a neutral observer “
29. joe90 29

    3 January 2014 at 6:57 pm

    Seems Gareth is a johnny come lately.

    https://twitter.com/lilsarg/status/418812215785828354/photo/1/large
30. Draco T Bastard 30

    3 January 2014 at 7:21 pm

    For Financial Speculators, Profit Means Plunging the Masses into Crippling forms of Debt

    The establishment of city, regional and state banks, such as the state public bank in North Dakota, permits localities to invest money in community projects rather than hand it to speculators. It keeps property and sales taxes, along with payrolls for public employees and pension funds, from lining the pockets of speculators such asJamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein. Money, instead of engorging the bank accounts of the few, is leveraged to fund schools, restore infrastructure, sustain systems of mass transit and develop energy self-reliance.

    NZ is too small for the local banks that the article is talking about but a public banking system is definitely what we need to bring prosperity to NZ as well as sustainability.
31. Ennui 31

    3 January 2014 at 7:58 pm

    Draco, we have forgotten too quickly Credit Unions, Building Societies and local banks, all deceased since the late 80s. They all worked on the principle that the government was the lender of the last resort via the Reserve Bank, under the then (old) Reserve Bank Act that allowed the Reserve Bank and government to highly regulate these organisations. Our version of Glass Steagel. Small was and is beautiful (and entirely possible).
    • Draco T Bastard 31.1

      3 January 2014 at 11:50 pm

      Credit Unions, Building Societies and local banks are great for building houses, buying cars etc but for infrastructure that spans the nation such as rail, telecommunications and power? Yeah, na, sorry – too small. For things like that you need investment from the entire population.

      They all worked on the principle that the government was the lender of the last resort via the Reserve Bank,

      The reserve bank still acts like that giving the private banks unlimited ability to create money.
32. joe90 32

    3 January 2014 at 10:03 pm

    I wish.

    http://i.imgur.com/EpuhHJa.png

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/01/moon_and_andromeda_relative_size_in_the_sky.html
    • Draco T Bastard 32.1

      4 January 2014 at 12:09 am

      Now just imagine what this one would look like if it was just as bright.
33. Poission 33

    3 January 2014 at 10:16 pm

    Spying or at least the use of federal agencies to gain a commercial advantage during intergovernmental arbitration will be a focus of attention shortly,with Australia in the frame.

    Timor-Leste and Australia,s ongoing dispute and recent bugging allegations

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/28/timor-leste-australia-spying-resources-treaty

    have made a turn for the worse with the Australians spy agency, sending in special agents (91 unleaded) and ( 96 octane) to seize legal documents on the Arbitration case from TL lawyers.

    http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/156/17844.pdf
34. tricledrown 34

    3 January 2014 at 11:16 pm

    Credit Unions still exist.
35. Draco T Bastard 35

    4 January 2014 at 12:23 am

    NAFTA’s 20 Years of Unfulfilled Promises

    “Before NAFTA, Mexico was a developing country,” says Victor Suarez, who leads an association of Mexican small farmers. “But now it’s an underdeveloping country, with 70 percent of people in rural areas and 85 percent of the indigenous population living in poverty.”

    But, hey, some people are doing well out of it:

    Not everyone is a loser, of course. Mexico boasts the richest man in the world, Carlos Slim — who amassed his fortune from privatisation schemes related to NAFTA. Mexico’s economic elite, with its wealth securely deposited in banks in the United States and elsewhere, finds a lot to like in NAFTA.

    So, just how much damage will the TPPA do to us?
36. SPC 36

    4 January 2014 at 5:48 am

    Day one

    Less time on identity politics to focus on the right issues from CV. Judge

    Day two

    But this is part of who we are. Jury

    Day 3

    This attack on CV is overdone and as the issue is divisive we should avoid identity politics as a topic. Executioner.

    Er we do not need to agree on this on a blog. And there is no right or wrong view for us that we need to share on any issue.
    • karol 36.1

      4 January 2014 at 8:07 am

      Well, summarized and conlcuded, SPC.
    • fender 36.2

      4 January 2014 at 12:11 pm

      Somehow I doubt the fool loitering about wearing his sandwich board will agree with you..
37. Penny Bright 37

    4 January 2014 at 6:29 pm

    Happy New Year folks!

    Been a grrrly swot in the wilds of Golden Bay, doing a lot of study on anti-corruption and related matters – while catching up with family – it’s been GREAT.

    I predict that there will be LOTS of developments on a variety of anti-corruption matters, both locally, nationally and possibly internationally in 2014.
    _______________________________________________________________________________

    Speaking of predictions – FYI – my (published) comment on David Farrar’s 2014 political predictions article in NBR:

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/my-2014-predictions-ck-150526

    No predictions on the outcome of the John Banks electoral fraud trial in 2014?

    (Potentially could be quite a significant political event?)

    Wasn’t predicted in 2013 that John Banks would ever face trial for alleged electoral fraud?

    Happy New Year!

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS