Hamish McKenzie - no-income bum, London, Ontario
Friday, June 24, 2005
I can be pretty critical of Canada at times. Well, Ontario, at least. Box stores abound; there’s more concrete than grass; and 'fine dining' is characterized by drive-thrus, grease, and a "would you like fries with that?" patois.
But then I'm reminded that Canadians sometimes do things oh-so-right.
As part of Pride Week in Toronto, the city's major league baseball team, the Blue Jays, will host hundreds of homosexuals. An all-male gay chorus, Forte, will sing the national anthem at tonight's game against the Baltimore Orioles. The host of My Fabulous Gay Wedding will throw the opening pitch. And in the seventh-inning stretch, members of the Lesbian & Gay Community Appeal Foundation will don fruit costumes to entertain the crowd.
Says a Blue Jays spokesman: "We have a responsibility to be representative of our community and to reach out to segments of our community and overall just be an inclusive organization."
This is baseball, remember, the sport quintessentially associated with machismo.
Could you imagine this happening in New Zealand?
Picture this: the Auckland Blues run out onto Carisbrook on a drizzly grey Dunedin night. There are boos, shouts of "JAFA," and indeterminable references to fudge manufacturers. The Otago Highlanders follow to loud cheers. Speight's cans are thrown skywards. Then, just before kick-off, both teams and the crowd are treated to a cabaret-style rendition of George Michael's 'Outside'. PVC-panted flounces camp it up big time, cartwheeling over the halfway line, blowing kisses to the drunkards on the terrace.
How long do you think it would take before one of the dancers was wearing one of those Speight's cans on his forehead?
Actually, it would probably be sooner than that.
My feeling is that New Zealand sports -- rugby in particular -- are a long way off acknowledging homosexuals in their game-day festivities. They'll just stick to the safe stuff: kids' rugger teams, bagpipers, scantily-clad cheerleaders. Heterosexuality is where it's at, mate. The gays can go back to their own country. And play soccer. Now, watch me eat this pig.
The Blue Jays example is emblematic of Canada's more mature attitude towards homosexuality. Here there is a debate over whether or not gay marriage should be legalized for the whole country. (It's already legal in seven of the ten provinces, and in the Yukon territory). It makes New Zealand's squabble over Civil Unions -- which don't even go so far as to let homosexuals marry -- look even pettier.
But then I'm reminded that Canadians sometimes do things oh-so-right.
As part of Pride Week in Toronto, the city's major league baseball team, the Blue Jays, will host hundreds of homosexuals. An all-male gay chorus, Forte, will sing the national anthem at tonight's game against the Baltimore Orioles. The host of My Fabulous Gay Wedding will throw the opening pitch. And in the seventh-inning stretch, members of the Lesbian & Gay Community Appeal Foundation will don fruit costumes to entertain the crowd.
Says a Blue Jays spokesman: "We have a responsibility to be representative of our community and to reach out to segments of our community and overall just be an inclusive organization."
This is baseball, remember, the sport quintessentially associated with machismo.
Could you imagine this happening in New Zealand?
Picture this: the Auckland Blues run out onto Carisbrook on a drizzly grey Dunedin night. There are boos, shouts of "JAFA," and indeterminable references to fudge manufacturers. The Otago Highlanders follow to loud cheers. Speight's cans are thrown skywards. Then, just before kick-off, both teams and the crowd are treated to a cabaret-style rendition of George Michael's 'Outside'. PVC-panted flounces camp it up big time, cartwheeling over the halfway line, blowing kisses to the drunkards on the terrace.
How long do you think it would take before one of the dancers was wearing one of those Speight's cans on his forehead?
Actually, it would probably be sooner than that.
My feeling is that New Zealand sports -- rugby in particular -- are a long way off acknowledging homosexuals in their game-day festivities. They'll just stick to the safe stuff: kids' rugger teams, bagpipers, scantily-clad cheerleaders. Heterosexuality is where it's at, mate. The gays can go back to their own country. And play soccer. Now, watch me eat this pig.
The Blue Jays example is emblematic of Canada's more mature attitude towards homosexuality. Here there is a debate over whether or not gay marriage should be legalized for the whole country. (It's already legal in seven of the ten provinces, and in the Yukon territory). It makes New Zealand's squabble over Civil Unions -- which don't even go so far as to let homosexuals marry -- look even pettier.
Hamish McKenzie - PR hack, London, Ontario
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
While the New Zealand media has roundly shirked its responsibilities to fine literature, the UK press is thankfully on task. One of the world's best newspapers, the Guardian, has picked up on Richard Meros' shocking book, On the conditions and possibilities of Helen Clark taking me as her Young Lover.
Outclassed by the Brits again. For shame, New Zealand, for shame.
Outclassed by the Brits again. For shame, New Zealand, for shame.
Lyndon Hood - Weblogger, Lower Hutt
Punishment: Known by psychologists to be the worse method of shaping behaviour available
By way of linking to the inaugural kiwi blog carnival (do take a look)...
I don't know if they're talking in shorthand, but Phil Etc and Big News both seem to think that repealing section 59 is to disallow a defense of reasonable force against child assault charges. This isn't really right.
What people are complaining about is the defense of reasonable force in the "correction" of your child. If we did nothing but repeal section 59 (which I understood was the deal), the reasonableness tests that apply to normal assaults would still apply.
Think of it with respect to an adult. If someone you know were derterminedly trying to stick a fork into a power socket, you would be utterly justified in pulling them away. If they were being that stupid, you could also give them a really good slap. But if you broke their arm, that would likely be considered too much.
Of course, adults are generally more sensible than that and have a tendency to hit back.
For all that opponents of section 59 forget this, juries would still get to decide what was reasonable. Not the police or, as Mr Maxim's staggering initial suggestion had it, judges.
Whether this option is better than clarifying in law what is reasonable or adding instructions for the jury (perhaps emphasising that just because it's discipine doesn't make it reasonable) is of course a matter for debate.
But something patently needs to be done. The law as it stands reads okay but it doesn't work. My jury experience would indicate that juries really are sincere about doing the job that they are supposed to but maybe when you throw in kids and reasonableness they need a bit more help.
By way of linking to the inaugural kiwi blog carnival (do take a look)...
I don't know if they're talking in shorthand, but Phil Etc and Big News both seem to think that repealing section 59 is to disallow a defense of reasonable force against child assault charges. This isn't really right.
What people are complaining about is the defense of reasonable force in the "correction" of your child. If we did nothing but repeal section 59 (which I understood was the deal), the reasonableness tests that apply to normal assaults would still apply.
Think of it with respect to an adult. If someone you know were derterminedly trying to stick a fork into a power socket, you would be utterly justified in pulling them away. If they were being that stupid, you could also give them a really good slap. But if you broke their arm, that would likely be considered too much.
Of course, adults are generally more sensible than that and have a tendency to hit back.
For all that opponents of section 59 forget this, juries would still get to decide what was reasonable. Not the police or, as Mr Maxim's staggering initial suggestion had it, judges.
Whether this option is better than clarifying in law what is reasonable or adding instructions for the jury (perhaps emphasising that just because it's discipine doesn't make it reasonable) is of course a matter for debate.
But something patently needs to be done. The law as it stands reads okay but it doesn't work. My jury experience would indicate that juries really are sincere about doing the job that they are supposed to but maybe when you throw in kids and reasonableness they need a bit more help.
Hamish McKenzie - closet golf fan, London, Ontario
Monday, June 20, 2005
Seeing New Zealand mentioned in the media over here anytime is a thrill. I felt slighted the other day when Canada's natoinal newspaper, the Globe and Mail, carried a picture of San Antonio Spurs/Tall Blacks basketball player Sean Marks with a caption identifying him as an Australian. I was excited to see a photo of Mt Cook in the same paper a week earlier. And when Russell Crowe was named as an Australian after his phone-throwing hissy fit, I almost cared. But then I realised it was Russell Crowe.
So when I watched Michael Campbell lift the US Open trophy on MSNBC tonight (it's still Sunday over here -- Canada's a bit behind the times), I felt something stir inside me. I guess it was something akin to pride.
Helen Clark, who must have been immensely grateful to finally hear some good news, described it as "one of New Zealand's greatest sporting achievements". Of course, everyone knows Clark is a golf expert of some repute. What's more, she just so happens to be right.
Campbell's victory is more significant than our America's Cup victories. Beating the world's top golfers -- Tiger Woods, Vijay Singh, Phil Mickelson, Retief Goosen, Ernie Els, and so many more -- at a course as unforgiving as Pinehurst, certainly outweighs a bunch of boat-bound privileged white men outracing other privileged white men around buoys. It's better than the 1987 rugby world cup victory, which was really just a victory over the three teams that had any chance of challenging the All Blacks. But it's probably not quite as good as Sarah Ulmer winning gold and setting world records at the Athens Olympics...
Okay, I'm not going to write anymore about whether or not it is one of New Zealand's greatest sporting moments, 'cos you might start thinking I actually care. After all, I don't want to step on Joseph Romano's toes.
Let's just say it was bloody good.
To have a humble, gentle, almost-in-tears New Zealander accepting the trophy, though, was really kinda nice. Seeing Campbell up there talking about his family in that thick Kiwi accent; to hear him telling New Zealanders that if he could do it, they can too; to witness the wussy boy inside of him come out -- it was all very heartening. Here was a New Zealand sportsman who could stand in front of a camera without cauliflower ears and cry in front of millions. And hardly a cliche uttered!
That's a man who I'm proud to point my Canadian friends to and say, "He's a New Zealander".
So when I watched Michael Campbell lift the US Open trophy on MSNBC tonight (it's still Sunday over here -- Canada's a bit behind the times), I felt something stir inside me. I guess it was something akin to pride.
Helen Clark, who must have been immensely grateful to finally hear some good news, described it as "one of New Zealand's greatest sporting achievements". Of course, everyone knows Clark is a golf expert of some repute. What's more, she just so happens to be right.
Campbell's victory is more significant than our America's Cup victories. Beating the world's top golfers -- Tiger Woods, Vijay Singh, Phil Mickelson, Retief Goosen, Ernie Els, and so many more -- at a course as unforgiving as Pinehurst, certainly outweighs a bunch of boat-bound privileged white men outracing other privileged white men around buoys. It's better than the 1987 rugby world cup victory, which was really just a victory over the three teams that had any chance of challenging the All Blacks. But it's probably not quite as good as Sarah Ulmer winning gold and setting world records at the Athens Olympics...
Okay, I'm not going to write anymore about whether or not it is one of New Zealand's greatest sporting moments, 'cos you might start thinking I actually care. After all, I don't want to step on Joseph Romano's toes.
Let's just say it was bloody good.
To have a humble, gentle, almost-in-tears New Zealander accepting the trophy, though, was really kinda nice. Seeing Campbell up there talking about his family in that thick Kiwi accent; to hear him telling New Zealanders that if he could do it, they can too; to witness the wussy boy inside of him come out -- it was all very heartening. Here was a New Zealand sportsman who could stand in front of a camera without cauliflower ears and cry in front of millions. And hardly a cliche uttered!
That's a man who I'm proud to point my Canadian friends to and say, "He's a New Zealander".
Lyndon Hood - professional, Lower Hutt
Sunday, June 19, 2005
No Right Turn cites an instance of something that - up until this last week or so - I had never given much thought to: economic prejudice. Actual economic prejudice. The idea that someone's employment status or income somehow makes them a less worthwhile (or to be specific, a more stupid) human being.
Cathy, commenting on DPF makes the assertion more or less explicitly. Hamish's opinion should not be judged on the merits of his argument or on his expertise in the issue (which appears to be greater than that of most if not all of the commenters*). It should be judged on whether he earns more than $38,000 a year.
As in, if he earns less he should "fuck off".
And that without the use of a self-depreciating emoticon or anything.
How odd.
I suppose I had realised that lots of people behave as if this is true. I just hadn't realised that people explicitly thought like that.
Anyhow, my wife is in the top tax bracket, and she says my opinion is worth listening to, so here goes:
The cream of society - or that which, as Terry Pratchett put it, is found floating on the top and is therefore most safely called "the cream" - no doubt has its share of sensible, clever and/or talented individuals. But if people rise by these qualities it is a tendency rather than a rule.
And even these admirable traits don't make people right all of the time.
Much as I would like to go on, I don't know that anything would make the Philip Morgans and Cathys of this world get the point.
For what it's worhth, this may explain they way it worked in at least one case. Jean-Louis Barrault was an influential French actor type in the middle of the twentieth century. In his book Reflections on the Theatre, he tells this story:
*The issue of defamation, that is. Not the issue of child molestation.
And now, one for the fans:
New Hood: Jackson Innocent - Hope For Benson-Pope?
Cathy, commenting on DPF makes the assertion more or less explicitly. Hamish's opinion should not be judged on the merits of his argument or on his expertise in the issue (which appears to be greater than that of most if not all of the commenters*). It should be judged on whether he earns more than $38,000 a year.
As in, if he earns less he should "fuck off".
And that without the use of a self-depreciating emoticon or anything.
How odd.
I suppose I had realised that lots of people behave as if this is true. I just hadn't realised that people explicitly thought like that.
Anyhow, my wife is in the top tax bracket, and she says my opinion is worth listening to, so here goes:
The cream of society - or that which, as Terry Pratchett put it, is found floating on the top and is therefore most safely called "the cream" - no doubt has its share of sensible, clever and/or talented individuals. But if people rise by these qualities it is a tendency rather than a rule.
And even these admirable traits don't make people right all of the time.
Much as I would like to go on, I don't know that anything would make the Philip Morgans and Cathys of this world get the point.
For what it's worhth, this may explain they way it worked in at least one case. Jean-Louis Barrault was an influential French actor type in the middle of the twentieth century. In his book Reflections on the Theatre, he tells this story:
One evening I dined with a big industrialist who built ships and who spent the whole meal pitying me because of my profession. A profession which, he said, consisted in smearing one's face like a girl, putting on fancy-dress as it if was carnival, and repeating the same words every evening . . . "and not your own words at that." I said: "You, sir, build ships. Very well. If you lost several million francs per ship built, granting that it wouldn't break you financially, would you go on building ships ?" "No, if I lost millions in building ships I would stop." "Very well, sir, then you don't really love building ships. As for me, if I lost my life acting I would still go on acting. Which proves that I love my craft more than you love yours." I should add that this little exchange bound us together and we went along full sail for the rest of the evening.
*The issue of defamation, that is. Not the issue of child molestation.
And now, one for the fans:
New Hood: Jackson Innocent - Hope For Benson-Pope?
Hamish McKenzie - not a real journalist, London, Ontario
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Response blog
Farrar: It's good that you disagree. Next time you should explain why. You get a B-. (BTW: I was careful to use the word potentially. Look it up.)
Bhatnagar: I suggest investing in a book on media law. Then read DPF's post again very carefully. If you want, print out a transcript, post it to me, and I'll highlight the crucial parts you missed. In the meantime: I didn't link to DPF's post because I would put myself at risk of 'republishing' potentially defamatory material. I'm not linking to your post for the same reason. Well, that, and I don't want to subject anyone to your painful battle with grammar. If bad writing were a disease it would have killed you long ago. As it is, it's an affliction that's left you a literary leper. Seek help.
(P.S. How long did it take you to figure out Ontario was in Canada?)
Finkenstein (from DPF's comments): Thanks for calling me post-pubic. Mind you, it hurts a little that you didn't acknowledge my stellar career with the Lonesome Buckwhips -- that was clearly stated on my CV, and it's my proudest moment in an illustrious career of underachievement.
Craig Ranapia (also from comments): ; ) : ) : P : o
Charles (from comments too): I know of no worse cliché than a foaming-at-the-mouth right-winger. And I was in Guatemala in February, when I did some volunteer work for villagers near Quetzaltenango. But it's okay, I didn't expect you to know that.
Finally, I've received an email from an interested Canadian reader. I reproduce it here with his full permission. It is the one comment I have no response to:
"Hello Mr. Mckenzie
As you have no comment feature on your blog, I have been forced to compose an e-mail to express my fervent displeasure at your most recent post.
First of all, I do not appreciate your sordid love affair with Graeme Capill. I admit, I have never been to New Zealand, nor do I know anything about Mr. Capill. Nevertheless, I have heard that he is a [word censored by Hamish for knee-quivering fear of the law], and as such should be shunned by society . . . EVEN by left-wing radicals such as yourself. Your journalistic punditry has no place when it threatens the safety of our children, and it does.
Regarding your glib comment that arts and culture are--*ahem*--"thriving" in New Zealand (surely if they were "thriving," you could think up a livelier verb than THAT?), I happen to know that your country has produced nothing of worth since Whale Rider and Crowded House. I can only assume, because your product has not reached the lovely shores of Canada, that New Zealand has done nothing in the interim. For shame!
As well, the "Third World," as you call it, is not merely a place of "extreme poverty, water shortages, endemic disease, crippling debt, an AIDS epidemic, famine, genocide, corrupt governments, and getting bombed, over and over and over again," as you so reductively put it. It is also a place of great joy. Granted most third world citizens don't live for very long, but I believe, that when I look into the eyes of the fly-riddled, thoroughly emaciated and sickly civilians that I see on charity commercials, I see joy. And I think if you do too, you will see the same.
I am rarely wrong on these matters of human interest, Mr. Mckenzie. I
was an actor, once. I understand humanity.
Oh, and lest I forget:
8========>
Good evening to you, Mr. Mckenzie. Until you post again.
Simon Cheung, First Year Pols Student"
Farrar: It's good that you disagree. Next time you should explain why. You get a B-. (BTW: I was careful to use the word potentially. Look it up.)
Bhatnagar: I suggest investing in a book on media law. Then read DPF's post again very carefully. If you want, print out a transcript, post it to me, and I'll highlight the crucial parts you missed. In the meantime: I didn't link to DPF's post because I would put myself at risk of 'republishing' potentially defamatory material. I'm not linking to your post for the same reason. Well, that, and I don't want to subject anyone to your painful battle with grammar. If bad writing were a disease it would have killed you long ago. As it is, it's an affliction that's left you a literary leper. Seek help.
(P.S. How long did it take you to figure out Ontario was in Canada?)
Finkenstein (from DPF's comments): Thanks for calling me post-pubic. Mind you, it hurts a little that you didn't acknowledge my stellar career with the Lonesome Buckwhips -- that was clearly stated on my CV, and it's my proudest moment in an illustrious career of underachievement.
Craig Ranapia (also from comments): ; ) : ) : P : o
Charles (from comments too): I know of no worse cliché than a foaming-at-the-mouth right-winger. And I was in Guatemala in February, when I did some volunteer work for villagers near Quetzaltenango. But it's okay, I didn't expect you to know that.
Finally, I've received an email from an interested Canadian reader. I reproduce it here with his full permission. It is the one comment I have no response to:
"Hello Mr. Mckenzie
As you have no comment feature on your blog, I have been forced to compose an e-mail to express my fervent displeasure at your most recent post.
First of all, I do not appreciate your sordid love affair with Graeme Capill. I admit, I have never been to New Zealand, nor do I know anything about Mr. Capill. Nevertheless, I have heard that he is a [word censored by Hamish for knee-quivering fear of the law], and as such should be shunned by society . . . EVEN by left-wing radicals such as yourself. Your journalistic punditry has no place when it threatens the safety of our children, and it does.
Regarding your glib comment that arts and culture are--*ahem*--"thriving" in New Zealand (surely if they were "thriving," you could think up a livelier verb than THAT?), I happen to know that your country has produced nothing of worth since Whale Rider and Crowded House. I can only assume, because your product has not reached the lovely shores of Canada, that New Zealand has done nothing in the interim. For shame!
As well, the "Third World," as you call it, is not merely a place of "extreme poverty, water shortages, endemic disease, crippling debt, an AIDS epidemic, famine, genocide, corrupt governments, and getting bombed, over and over and over again," as you so reductively put it. It is also a place of great joy. Granted most third world citizens don't live for very long, but I believe, that when I look into the eyes of the fly-riddled, thoroughly emaciated and sickly civilians that I see on charity commercials, I see joy. And I think if you do too, you will see the same.
I am rarely wrong on these matters of human interest, Mr. Mckenzie. I
was an actor, once. I understand humanity.
Oh, and lest I forget:
8========>
Good evening to you, Mr. Mckenzie. Until you post again.
Simon Cheung, First Year Pols Student"
Hamish McKenzie - journalism student, London, Ontario
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Looking at the Other world
A good friend and regular Fighting Talk reader has emailed to tell me he's recommended my writing to friends, which he thinks is a bit odd considering he's got a bumper sticker that reads "Vote Labour and Welcome New Zealand to the Third World".
I don't think it's odd; I think it's commendable. Now they can all read why bumper stickers with slogans that put "New Zealand" and "Third World" in the same sentence are fucking retarded.
Let us consider the Third World for a moment. (What a novel idea.)
The Third World* suffers from extreme poverty, water shortages, endemic disease, crippling debt, an AIDS epidemic, famine, genocide, corrupt governments, and getting bombed, over and over and over again.
New Zealanders suffer from not getting as much of a tax cut as they would have liked.
In the meantime, New Zealand's unemployment rate is among the best in the OECD, we’ve made improvements in poverty statistics, and the government has consistently posted surpluses (which it’s reluctant to fritter away in a hurry because of a forecast economic downturn -- that’s called 'thinking ahead').
Arts and culture is thriving, largely because of the PACE scheme, which allows artists to be artists without starving. The PACE scheme helps uncover potential Scribes (not that he actually was on the scheme -- that I know of). Scribe has dominated the New Zealand pop market and even penetrated Australia's in the much-maligned hip-hop genre. Many adults -- conservative or otherwise -- wouldn't have heard of him, but by example, he's doing more for poor brown people than any old white politician ever could. Let's not forget poor brown people -- the ones who can't afford the I-pods, the Sky TV, or the personal cellphones for each family member -- are still at the bottom of the economic heap in this country.
I'm sure tax-cut-demanding voters will get by for a while longer without an extra fridge in the kitchen. It might be tough -- might be uncomfortably close to that Third World where people who can't afford to feed their families are forced to pay for potable water -- but their conservative instincts should prompt them to hoard necessary provisions (foot spas, Gucci sunglasses, heated towel rails, etc.) for the impending apocalypse.
Now, I'm no die-hard Labour supporter; there are many instances in which I think they've made complete cocks of themselves -- the foreshore and seabed intervention, Ahmed Zaoui, and the Civil Unions Bill (why not gay marriage?), to name a few -- but I think we're being a tad reactionary when we try to claim they're dragging us into the Third World. Such mindless slogans are an insult to voters' intelligence.
At least, I would hope so.
* Please, click on the links and learn about real problems.
P.S. David Farrar: Your recent post about Graeme Capill's latest sex charges is potentially defamatory -- as are the ensuing comments. So, you decided he was guilty based on a headline and an unrelated plea? You're a disgrace. Let the courts do their job before you declare someone guilty of such a heinous crime and publish that 'verdict'. And for you to later jump on the media-law-expert-horse in the Herald -- what a joke. Capill may turn out to be guilty of these charges, but if he isn’t, then you’ll look like a right royal wanker.
A good friend and regular Fighting Talk reader has emailed to tell me he's recommended my writing to friends, which he thinks is a bit odd considering he's got a bumper sticker that reads "Vote Labour and Welcome New Zealand to the Third World".
I don't think it's odd; I think it's commendable. Now they can all read why bumper stickers with slogans that put "New Zealand" and "Third World" in the same sentence are fucking retarded.
Let us consider the Third World for a moment. (What a novel idea.)
The Third World* suffers from extreme poverty, water shortages, endemic disease, crippling debt, an AIDS epidemic, famine, genocide, corrupt governments, and getting bombed, over and over and over again.
New Zealanders suffer from not getting as much of a tax cut as they would have liked.
In the meantime, New Zealand's unemployment rate is among the best in the OECD, we’ve made improvements in poverty statistics, and the government has consistently posted surpluses (which it’s reluctant to fritter away in a hurry because of a forecast economic downturn -- that’s called 'thinking ahead').
Arts and culture is thriving, largely because of the PACE scheme, which allows artists to be artists without starving. The PACE scheme helps uncover potential Scribes (not that he actually was on the scheme -- that I know of). Scribe has dominated the New Zealand pop market and even penetrated Australia's in the much-maligned hip-hop genre. Many adults -- conservative or otherwise -- wouldn't have heard of him, but by example, he's doing more for poor brown people than any old white politician ever could. Let's not forget poor brown people -- the ones who can't afford the I-pods, the Sky TV, or the personal cellphones for each family member -- are still at the bottom of the economic heap in this country.
I'm sure tax-cut-demanding voters will get by for a while longer without an extra fridge in the kitchen. It might be tough -- might be uncomfortably close to that Third World where people who can't afford to feed their families are forced to pay for potable water -- but their conservative instincts should prompt them to hoard necessary provisions (foot spas, Gucci sunglasses, heated towel rails, etc.) for the impending apocalypse.
Now, I'm no die-hard Labour supporter; there are many instances in which I think they've made complete cocks of themselves -- the foreshore and seabed intervention, Ahmed Zaoui, and the Civil Unions Bill (why not gay marriage?), to name a few -- but I think we're being a tad reactionary when we try to claim they're dragging us into the Third World. Such mindless slogans are an insult to voters' intelligence.
At least, I would hope so.
* Please, click on the links and learn about real problems.
P.S. David Farrar: Your recent post about Graeme Capill's latest sex charges is potentially defamatory -- as are the ensuing comments. So, you decided he was guilty based on a headline and an unrelated plea? You're a disgrace. Let the courts do their job before you declare someone guilty of such a heinous crime and publish that 'verdict'. And for you to later jump on the media-law-expert-horse in the Herald -- what a joke. Capill may turn out to be guilty of these charges, but if he isn’t, then you’ll look like a right royal wanker.
Hamish McKenzie - special guy, London, Ontario
Monday, June 06, 2005
Vanity blog
Inspired by Messrs Farrar and Bhatagnar, I have decided to fill out the Vanity Fair quiz as well.
Okay, so really I’m just trying to procrastinate from an ass-licking research assignment that I’m meant to be doing for school, but that’s excuse enough, right?
What is your idea of perfect happiness?
Two girls. Preferably sisters. I’m just watching.
Which living person do you most admire?
Wing.
What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?
Humility.
What is your greatest extravagance?
Reading the eloquent musings of Bhatagnar and Farrar.
On what occasion do you lie?
Bed time.
What do you most dislike about your appearance?
Oversized biceps.
Which words or phrases do you most overuse?
Wha’ happened?
What is your greatest regret?
Not meeting Katherine Rich after calling her an MPILF in print.
What or who is the greatest love of your life?
I haven’t got a girlfriend to impress, so I’m going to say avocado. It’s a seasonal relationship.
Which talent would you most like to have?
Writing ability.
If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
My underpants.
What do your consider your greatest achievement?
This post.
If you were to die and come back as a person or thing, what would it be?
Jesus.
If you could choose to come back as a person or thing, what would it be?
I don’t understand why this question is different from the one above. But my answer is different anyway: Mohammed.
What is the quality you most like in a man?
A nice tight butt.
What is the quality you most admire in a woman?
Moral rectitude.
What do you most admire in your friends?
Their taste in choosing friends.
Who are your favourite writers?
Jim Hopkins, Aaron Bhatagnar, Peter Cresswell.
Who is your favourite hero of fiction?
Strongbad.
Who are your heroes in real life?
Peter Dunne and the United Future.
What are your favourite names?
Ruth, Jenny, Margaret.
What is your motto?
"Spot me a dollar?"
Inspired by Messrs Farrar and Bhatagnar, I have decided to fill out the Vanity Fair quiz as well.
Okay, so really I’m just trying to procrastinate from an ass-licking research assignment that I’m meant to be doing for school, but that’s excuse enough, right?
What is your idea of perfect happiness?
Two girls. Preferably sisters. I’m just watching.
Which living person do you most admire?
Wing.
What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?
Humility.
What is your greatest extravagance?
Reading the eloquent musings of Bhatagnar and Farrar.
On what occasion do you lie?
Bed time.
What do you most dislike about your appearance?
Oversized biceps.
Which words or phrases do you most overuse?
Wha’ happened?
What is your greatest regret?
Not meeting Katherine Rich after calling her an MPILF in print.
What or who is the greatest love of your life?
I haven’t got a girlfriend to impress, so I’m going to say avocado. It’s a seasonal relationship.
Which talent would you most like to have?
Writing ability.
If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
My underpants.
What do your consider your greatest achievement?
This post.
If you were to die and come back as a person or thing, what would it be?
Jesus.
If you could choose to come back as a person or thing, what would it be?
I don’t understand why this question is different from the one above. But my answer is different anyway: Mohammed.
What is the quality you most like in a man?
A nice tight butt.
What is the quality you most admire in a woman?
Moral rectitude.
What do you most admire in your friends?
Their taste in choosing friends.
Who are your favourite writers?
Jim Hopkins, Aaron Bhatagnar, Peter Cresswell.
Who is your favourite hero of fiction?
Strongbad.
Who are your heroes in real life?
Peter Dunne and the United Future.
What are your favourite names?
Ruth, Jenny, Margaret.
What is your motto?
"Spot me a dollar?"
Lyndon Hood - Photoshop owner, Lower Hutt
Does this mean everyone gets to fake up a National ad?
What with the poorly-mocked up pre-publicity from Bhatnagar via Farrar, and jamming suggestions coming thick and/or fast, looks like it's open season on annoying, simplistic, disingenuous billboards.
First thing I wanted to say was, if those letters are vinyl (I don't know if they are), they'll pull right off...
... and you could probably re-arrange them too. But I've got a computer and no ladder, so I though I'd do things this way. As a special bonus, they're not all entirely partisan.
And much as people have already got to this territory...
What with the poorly-mocked up pre-publicity from Bhatnagar via Farrar, and jamming suggestions coming thick and/or fast, looks like it's open season on annoying, simplistic, disingenuous billboards.
First thing I wanted to say was, if those letters are vinyl (I don't know if they are), they'll pull right off...
... and you could probably re-arrange them too. But I've got a computer and no ladder, so I though I'd do things this way. As a special bonus, they're not all entirely partisan.
And much as people have already got to this territory...
Hamish McKenzie - Pakeha, London, Ontario
Facts just get in the way of a good campaign
Bereft of any intelligent things to say, the National party has instead opted for a Bush-style use of simple images and simple pictures to sell itself to a public who have little patience for complexity.
It's just like George Bush donning a flight suit aboard an aircraft carrier and announcing "Mission Accomplished" in the Iraq War. Such simple images, such gross lies. And the public swallowed it so completely.
I take it that you all know what I'm talking about. The most repugnant of National's campaign billboards is headed "Beaches," with the word "Iwi" running alongside a portrait of Helen Clark, and the word "Kiwi" beside a clearly stupified Don Brash.
This presents a simple dichotomy that will appeal to any racist in the land. For a start, it's entirley wrong. I presume the billboard refers to the foreshore and seabed legislation, which is really nothing to do with beaches and everything to do with wet sand.
It also seems to be suggesting that Labour was unnecessarily generous towards iwi in its legislation. Surely it can't be so long ago that National has forgotten the Labour government denied iwi due process through the courts on the mere possibility of making a claim on foreshore and seabeds.
Or maybe Tariana Turia just left her comfy Labour seat for fun.
The positing of a "them" (iwi) and "us" (Kiwi), however, is classic racism. Clark is from Labour, the red team. Labour is not National, therefore it is bad. Labour is associated with iwi. Iwi must be bad too. On the National side Don Brash is smiling. National must be good. National is associated with Kiwi. That's us! We're good. Iwi can only have Maori people. Maori people must be bad.
Oh no, not at all, says Steven Joyce, National's campaign manager. From the Herald:
Mr Joyce maintained the message was more subtle than it might appear and "with the iwi being part of the word Kiwi as well" was not setting up an iwi vs kiwi polemic.
Yeah, because literary extrapolation is so hot right now.
Bereft of any intelligent things to say, the National party has instead opted for a Bush-style use of simple images and simple pictures to sell itself to a public who have little patience for complexity.
It's just like George Bush donning a flight suit aboard an aircraft carrier and announcing "Mission Accomplished" in the Iraq War. Such simple images, such gross lies. And the public swallowed it so completely.
I take it that you all know what I'm talking about. The most repugnant of National's campaign billboards is headed "Beaches," with the word "Iwi" running alongside a portrait of Helen Clark, and the word "Kiwi" beside a clearly stupified Don Brash.
This presents a simple dichotomy that will appeal to any racist in the land. For a start, it's entirley wrong. I presume the billboard refers to the foreshore and seabed legislation, which is really nothing to do with beaches and everything to do with wet sand.
It also seems to be suggesting that Labour was unnecessarily generous towards iwi in its legislation. Surely it can't be so long ago that National has forgotten the Labour government denied iwi due process through the courts on the mere possibility of making a claim on foreshore and seabeds.
Or maybe Tariana Turia just left her comfy Labour seat for fun.
The positing of a "them" (iwi) and "us" (Kiwi), however, is classic racism. Clark is from Labour, the red team. Labour is not National, therefore it is bad. Labour is associated with iwi. Iwi must be bad too. On the National side Don Brash is smiling. National must be good. National is associated with Kiwi. That's us! We're good. Iwi can only have Maori people. Maori people must be bad.
Oh no, not at all, says Steven Joyce, National's campaign manager. From the Herald:
Mr Joyce maintained the message was more subtle than it might appear and "with the iwi being part of the word Kiwi as well" was not setting up an iwi vs kiwi polemic.
Yeah, because literary extrapolation is so hot right now.
Lyndon Hood - mad anyway, Lower Hutt
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
I can't bring myself not to post about the Greens - conditional - support of Goff's prisoner compenation-that-you-can't-actually-have bill.
No Right Turn points out that they're basically stopping things getting any worse. Guess he's right. Good on them.
I want to be all like, Grr, politics. But I think I really mean, Grr, social and political climate.
And I don't think it's a climate that's actually conducive to work on victim's issues (as distinct from just punishing prisoners) or rehabilitation. These somehow don't seem compatible with the hang-em-high approach.
So I can't see much progress being made before the Green's sunset clause kicks in.
No Right Turn points out that they're basically stopping things getting any worse. Guess he's right. Good on them.
I want to be all like, Grr, politics. But I think I really mean, Grr, social and political climate.
And I don't think it's a climate that's actually conducive to work on victim's issues (as distinct from just punishing prisoners) or rehabilitation. These somehow don't seem compatible with the hang-em-high approach.
So I can't see much progress being made before the Green's sunset clause kicks in.
