Wha- hey. Another tipping point. The same as last year only different. This time, there is a good reason.
There was something that RB's excellent Great Blend gig did for me. Bumping unexpectedly into Matt Nippert, fresh from the Democratic Republic of the USA and all set to go full throttle back at the Listener. I got a Barry Soperish vibe. Fatalists make good journalists. I discovered how to pronounce Keith Ng (It's Ing, phonetically). I was always too embarassed to ask. I was blown away by the high resolution version of Starlords and hearing the hitcount of the hirtherto-unknown-to-moi SkyKiwi. The excellent danah boyd spoke with Tim Shadboltian fluency on the MySpace teenage phenomenon. Nice hat too.
The people I met who, under any other circumstances, I would never have had reason to talk with. Kitchens at parties was OK in the 80s. In the noughties the kitchen has moved outdoors. You'll find the best conversations are among smokers, freaks, geeks and queers.
And yes, for all those who heard the goss, I dropped out of uni. Nothing personal against the excellent lecturers, who deserve the payrise, even as the exodus of brains continues overseas. I always thought a university is where you learnt about the universe, not just Life, Law and Commerce. I attribute my postgrad demise to a mix of the "Knowledge Brings Fear" thing and my time of the month lasting over a month. Che, you are not alone.
I have also reached a tipping point where I have told so many people I have been "working on a book called Kiwianatopia" so often, I am obliged get stuck in and do it. The blog has to go. I can't type for shit anyway, doing all my best writing longhand. The computer is also an almighty distraction. AL Daily linked to an interesting piece pondering whether George Orwell would have ever written his goodstuff if he blogged about Colonial India. What blogging brings with immediacy, usually detracts from reflection. Little wonder Orwell locked himself away to write on a remote Scottish island with nothing but a large stock of tea and write 1984. Should I start this epic tale or one more game of Alpha Centauri? Enough. I'm going dark. If anything gets too much, I'll post it up at the old Blogspot addy.
So long, and cheers for the beers.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Welcome to NZ, King Loong
Like a beggar in a bazaar, NZ is overjoyed to be visited by Premier Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore, perhaps the world's only democratically elected constitutional monarch. So awed by his country's wealth and glamour, we swallow our chewing gum and hope that some crumbs of trade are thrown into our lap as he goes by.
Who are we to throw stones? As this Herald editorial points out, we are fresh from putting one of our own in the pillory of sedition. In our own oligarchic democracy, any outdoors public meetings must be authorised by Wellington City Council. Failure to do so risks a fine of up to $20,000 plus court costs, enough to bankrupt many in these debt-fuelled times. Justice is no longer free. Aside from the lawyers' bills and the ironically termed Legal Aid, applying to the higher courts is beyond the pricetag for those who do not know how to milk the system. Donna.
We treat smokers like lepers, only worse. Lepers do not pay leprosy tax.
While Singapore's path has been steered through poverty to the fabled knowledge economy, our good ship Endeavour has been wrapped in so much red tape and bubblewrap, it is indistinguishable from a Zorb. Our economy bobs on the tides of overseas currents, without direction or purpose. The God of Safety keeps us from all harm and hope.
I awoke from a terrible dream this morning. I was on a captainless ship and got washed overboard. I was thrashing about in the water, not knowing how long I could keep my head above the waves. Helen Clark saw what was happening and threw some money to me. Don Brash stood there berating me for falling off the boat in the first place. Rodney Hide dived in to save me but ended up getting caught in a rip. Jeanette Fitzsimons was looking at the exhaust stacks with disapproval, while Hone Harwira said that I'd be able to stay afloat longer if my lungs weren't buggered from smoking.
My friends turned up, saw what was happening and threw me a lifefloat. I got back on board and thanked my trusted friends profusely. The political leaders congratulated themselves on a job well done and went off to get their media units to issue a press release.
(Originally posted 21/6/06)
Who are we to throw stones? As this Herald editorial points out, we are fresh from putting one of our own in the pillory of sedition. In our own oligarchic democracy, any outdoors public meetings must be authorised by Wellington City Council. Failure to do so risks a fine of up to $20,000 plus court costs, enough to bankrupt many in these debt-fuelled times. Justice is no longer free. Aside from the lawyers' bills and the ironically termed Legal Aid, applying to the higher courts is beyond the pricetag for those who do not know how to milk the system. Donna.
We treat smokers like lepers, only worse. Lepers do not pay leprosy tax.
While Singapore's path has been steered through poverty to the fabled knowledge economy, our good ship Endeavour has been wrapped in so much red tape and bubblewrap, it is indistinguishable from a Zorb. Our economy bobs on the tides of overseas currents, without direction or purpose. The God of Safety keeps us from all harm and hope.
I awoke from a terrible dream this morning. I was on a captainless ship and got washed overboard. I was thrashing about in the water, not knowing how long I could keep my head above the waves. Helen Clark saw what was happening and threw some money to me. Don Brash stood there berating me for falling off the boat in the first place. Rodney Hide dived in to save me but ended up getting caught in a rip. Jeanette Fitzsimons was looking at the exhaust stacks with disapproval, while Hone Harwira said that I'd be able to stay afloat longer if my lungs weren't buggered from smoking.
My friends turned up, saw what was happening and threw me a lifefloat. I got back on board and thanked my trusted friends profusely. The political leaders congratulated themselves on a job well done and went off to get their media units to issue a press release.
(Originally posted 21/6/06)
The Road to Sedition
The blogs are alive with support for Tim Selwyn, who is the first person in over seventy years to go to court charged with sedition tomorrow. The heavyweights, I/S and DPF, have weighed in with more eloquence and evidence than I could ever muster. This case bothers me on a number of other fronts as well.
We have had some really strange decisions from police prosecutors in recent times. Apart from the Selwyn vs Vorlons thing, there was the midwife criminal prosecution. It was the wrong tool for the job in the whole unfortunate saga and should never have gone to court in the first place. I'm sure there were another couple of examples of vexacious prosecution but buggered if I can remember them at the moment.
On the other side of the coin, there have been cases which had prima facie evidence but never got a look in. The Labour pledge card fiasco is a prime example. Even the Nats GST bungle should have been cleared up in court, rather than considering any once-off retrospective legislation. It's not as if they can take back 12.5 percent of their election propaganda, is it?
But the sedition charge bugs me in a more disconcerting way. Maybe it's the timing. It can be viewed as a testing of the waters by a post-9/11 government on what free speech means. This could very well be the Kiwi version of the Patriot Act. The Mohammed cartoons business showed how little regard the right to publish is thought of by our alleged leaders.
Consider for a moment the example of CommunityNet Aotearoa. On the surface, it seems a genuine attempt to promote a civil society. Its mission is to "help all New Zealand community organisations by providing access to relevant, quality information, raising the profile of the community sector , [and] encouraging information sharing between organisations" . It's not until you get to the bottom of the page that you see the major qualification: " The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua maintains www.community.net.nz as a community service."
This makes all the difference. An Advisory Group actually decides what "all New Zealand community organisations" means. "All" actually means "approved". NORML was barred from being included on the site. The following email says why:
----- Original Message -----
From:Bill.Dashfield@dia.govt.nz
To:info@norml.org.nz
Cc: information@community.net.nz
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:30 PM
Subject: Nomination of www.norml.org.nz for linking
Dear Colin (note, no-one in NORML knows who Colin is)
Thank you for your nomination of the National Organisation Reform of Marijuana Laws NZ Inc. website. I apologise for the delay in responding.
The editorial strategy of CommunityNet Aotearoa is set by our community Advisory Group, who's members have been nominated by community organisations (see http://www.community.net.nz/About/Governance/ ). The Advisory Group has set the selection criteria for material and links and decided to exclude links to material advocating or encouraging illegal acts.
Members of the Advisory Group are supportive of some aspects of the NORML website and work - for example the information on legal rights and a harm minimisation approach; however several of the Forums on your website (for example: the Cannabis Growing Forum) are clearly set up to advocate and encourage the growing, possession and use of Marijuana, which is currently illegal.
We have therefore decided not to link to NORML at this stage. Should the contents of the site change, please do not hesitate to resubmit it.
Best regards
Bill Dashfield
Project Manager, CommunityNet Aotearoa
Local Government and Community Operations Team
Department of Internal Affairs
DDI: (04) 495 7285 Mobile: 021 140 5422
Try CommunityNet Aotearoa - http://www.community.net.nz - NZ's online resource for community and voluntary organisations
OK, got that? Now imagine that the internet existed before the Homosexual Law Reform Act was passed. Any site peacefully promoting an illegal act such as homosexuality would have also have been banned.
Either all ideas are OK, or none of them are. Give 'em hell, Tim.
(Originally posted 5/6/06)
We have had some really strange decisions from police prosecutors in recent times. Apart from the Selwyn vs Vorlons thing, there was the midwife criminal prosecution. It was the wrong tool for the job in the whole unfortunate saga and should never have gone to court in the first place. I'm sure there were another couple of examples of vexacious prosecution but buggered if I can remember them at the moment.
On the other side of the coin, there have been cases which had prima facie evidence but never got a look in. The Labour pledge card fiasco is a prime example. Even the Nats GST bungle should have been cleared up in court, rather than considering any once-off retrospective legislation. It's not as if they can take back 12.5 percent of their election propaganda, is it?
But the sedition charge bugs me in a more disconcerting way. Maybe it's the timing. It can be viewed as a testing of the waters by a post-9/11 government on what free speech means. This could very well be the Kiwi version of the Patriot Act. The Mohammed cartoons business showed how little regard the right to publish is thought of by our alleged leaders.
Consider for a moment the example of CommunityNet Aotearoa. On the surface, it seems a genuine attempt to promote a civil society. Its mission is to "help all New Zealand community organisations by providing access to relevant, quality information, raising the profile of the community sector , [and] encouraging information sharing between organisations" . It's not until you get to the bottom of the page that you see the major qualification: " The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua maintains www.community.net.nz as a community service."
This makes all the difference. An Advisory Group actually decides what "all New Zealand community organisations" means. "All" actually means "approved". NORML was barred from being included on the site. The following email says why:
----- Original Message -----
From:Bill.Dashfield@dia.govt.nz
To:info@norml.org.nz
Cc: information@community.net.nz
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:30 PM
Subject: Nomination of www.norml.org.nz for linking
Dear Colin (note, no-one in NORML knows who Colin is)
Thank you for your nomination of the National Organisation Reform of Marijuana Laws NZ Inc. website. I apologise for the delay in responding.
The editorial strategy of CommunityNet Aotearoa is set by our community Advisory Group, who's members have been nominated by community organisations (see http://www.community.net.nz/About/Governance/ ). The Advisory Group has set the selection criteria for material and links and decided to exclude links to material advocating or encouraging illegal acts.
Members of the Advisory Group are supportive of some aspects of the NORML website and work - for example the information on legal rights and a harm minimisation approach; however several of the Forums on your website (for example: the Cannabis Growing Forum) are clearly set up to advocate and encourage the growing, possession and use of Marijuana, which is currently illegal.
We have therefore decided not to link to NORML at this stage. Should the contents of the site change, please do not hesitate to resubmit it.
Best regards
Bill Dashfield
Project Manager, CommunityNet Aotearoa
Local Government and Community Operations Team
Department of Internal Affairs
DDI: (04) 495 7285 Mobile: 021 140 5422
Try CommunityNet Aotearoa - http://www.community.net.nz - NZ's online resource for community and voluntary organisations
OK, got that? Now imagine that the internet existed before the Homosexual Law Reform Act was passed. Any site peacefully promoting an illegal act such as homosexuality would have also have been banned.
Either all ideas are OK, or none of them are. Give 'em hell, Tim.
(Originally posted 5/6/06)
Another toothpick
The policy wonks are looking at putting toothpick instructions on booze. By this, I refer to Douglas Adams' dude in SLATFATF who lived outside the asylum after getting pushed over the edge by reading some toothpick instructions.
As we know from Kate Sheppard and the Women's Christian Temperance Movement a hundred years ago, alcohol is bad. In contemporary technocratic language strategies, "We have a product that if used in some ways it has very real harms for both individuals and communities." Of course, the best way to solve this is to do what they did to tobacco, banning advertising and putting warning labels everywhere. Oh yeah, that'll stop the harm. "But wait," say the wonks. "This is no silver bullet. It is only part of a comprehensive strategy to address the inadequecies of the current paradigm. I'll show you the Powerpoint presentation." I've spent enough time dancing to recognise a loop when I hear one.
Earlier in the month, I'd waltzed along to the National Drug Policy forum to review their Five Year Plan. There was a good turnout of around 40 people. There were representatives from the Ministry of Health, Corrections, Youth, and other government bodies I lost track of. The Pharmacy Guild were there, almost filling up the back row. The NZ Drug Foundation had a rep and Mark Peck from the Smokefree Coalition was there. A wide variety of NGOs and public servants were at the public meeting. No-one was there as an individual.
Not a single member of the public was there. Not even Blanket Man bothered, even though morning tea was provided. Dagg knows how lively the meeting would have been if some NORML and Green Cross people hadn't turned up. As it was, we filled the many silences with our suggestions and observations while half the room took notes. There were a few other sensible people there, notably the guy from the DHB who had more relevant and practical knowledge than a hundred PUBL or MGMT courses. Don't get me wrong. I have no doubt that everyone who attended meant well. The road to public policy is paved with good intentions.
Of course, it is pointless to send a submission on the Five Year Plan. While Chairman Jim has the final word on drug policy, nothing will change. Even though in his heart of hearts, he knows that prohibition doesn't work, he is too proud to admit he has been wrong all these years. This mediocre King Lear will have to go, Captain Sensible with him, before any admission of reality will be accepted.
This warning label trend is part of escaping the reality of the situation while still looking like you're doing something. It also means you can disavow responsibility for reality. "Hey, we warned you!" It's the same script that says, "You had the opportunity to consult, even if we did set the rules of engagement, the jargon and the terms of reference."
Compare, for example, three levels of warning labels for the same inflatable swim-ring:
The blunt Oz warning: "Flotation toy - Warning: Use only under competent supervision."
The moderate Brit warning: "Warning! Only to be used in water in which the child is within its depth and under supervision."
The 'don't sue us' American warning: "Caution: This is not a life saving device. Do not leave child unattended while in use. Never allow diving into this product. Never leave in or near the water when not in use. Only use in water. Follow these rules to avoid drowning, paralysis or other serious injury."
Guess which country Robert Strange McNamara came from?
(Originally posted 31/5/06)
Quality over quantity
I'm reasonably certain that the 99 MP Bill thing will get sunk. In spite of the public majority who supported a referendum on the issue several years ago, it's just too threatening for the system to consider hacking off one sixth of its bodyfat. It would also be an admission that while MMP is an improvement on FPP, the system is still pretty out of whack.
The Royal Commission on the Electoral System in 1986 got it wrong. STV should have been the recommendation, proportionality balanced with effective government. Instead they chose MMP, the German model that would prevent fanatic extremists from gaining power. Yet here we are, still stuck with Winston P and Chairman Jim. Instead of an evolution to STV in local body and national elections, the MMP anomoly has contributed to a mesmerizingly complicated governance plan. People are faced with up to three different electoral systems. Tick this, number that, pick a colour. Only a technocrat's logic could justify this as making it simpler for the governed.
By the Royal Commission's own terms of reference, MMP has not improved constituent representation. Going from 99 electorates in 1993 to 69 in 2005 has not seen a corresponding improvement in representation of anything other than party machinery. MMP has not stalled the decline in political party membership. Voter turnout last year confirmed this abyss between the party theory and the participatory reality. People haven't cared this little since 1919, the last time turnout hit 80 percent. Oops, I tell a lie. 2002 was worse with only 77 perecent legitimacy.
The Commission's second aim of representing NZ as a whole is arguable. There are indisputably more women in parliament than under FPP. But perhaps more women were going to be in parliament anyway because of changing public attitudes irregardless of MMP. 16 of the 39 women MPs are electorate representatives. But why stop at gender balance? If MPs truly reflect NZ, half the country must be unionists and teachers, while the other half are lawyers, accountants, doctors and farmers. Where are the 24 MPs who defend Kiwis who smoke tobacco, or the 15 MPs who admit smoking pot in the last year? Where are the six MPs who represent the unemployed? If the median age of NZers is 35 years, why is the median age of MPs closer to 70? If MMP provides a reflection of NZ, it is through a very narrow prism.
Effective government has suffered because of this illusion of representativeness. Helen Clark is facing this dilemma right now. Sure, the central committees sliced and diced the party list to get the appropriate gender and ethnicity balance. Unfortunately, it has come at the expense of selecting the best people fit to hold ministerial warrants. It is a triumph of form over function. We have a 120 member parliament yet there's still not enough talent to spread around the executive.
And what an executive. As DPF points out in his draft submission, cabinet has expanded to record size. This phenomenon is entirely due to having a larger parliament. It is no coincidence that there are 25 to 26 ministers in Labour's caucus of 50. Super-sized executives first appeared after Labour's landslide victory in 1972, when the party held 55 out of 87 seats. Cabinet comprised 20 members of caucus, just shy of today's record setter. Back then, a simple majority wasn't needed. Twenty ministers was considered a sufficient scrum to push caucus along. Muldoon didn't need a large executive to keep his caucus under control, as he bullied his way to a majority. 1984 came along and Lange's 56 person caucus saw a return to 20 ministers. In 1987, cabinet expanded to 23 out of a caucus of 57.
A decade later, MMP made huge executives the norm rather than the exception. Faced with mainly minority governments, it is political suicide not to have an executive majority in caucus. Without a simple majority, a backbencher backlash becomes an all too real possibility. If the Royal Commission's suggestion of increasing the size of parliament to 140 MPs went ahead, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to witness an executive of 35-40. Conversely, lowering the number of MPs to 100 would cause a corresponding drop in the size of cabinet.
One way to stop this all happening would be to cap the size of the executive. DPF reckons 20 is a good number and I could live with that. Personally, I think that at any one time there are no more than 9 useful ministries. The rest are there to fill up the ranks, hence the Ministry of Silly Walks proliferation over the last 20 years.
Would dropping the number of MPs to 100 effectively kill MMP? It depends whether you prefer a quicker or slower death I suppose. As DPF's calculations demonstrate, overhangs will become more likely over time anyway. What started out as a 65:55 split between electorate and list positions in '96 could, by 2026, evolve to a 90:30 split without any help from Barbara Stewart's Bill whatsoever. And hey, we've got an overhang this term so we might as well get used to them.
The most significant harm caused by reducing the size of the House would be in the select committees, the one place where democracy and consensus can flourish outside the party mantras. With twenty-nine MPs currently locked up in the executive, that leaves a maximum pool of 91 MPs to spread between 18 select committees. It's fair to say that they're spread very thinly as it is. Dropping to 100 MPs would leave around 80 MPs to sit in on the public feedback and discuss legislation before the ideologies get wheeled out in the debating chamber. If you amalgamated a couple of these commitees, you might retain something resembling the existing balance.
So, in summary, I both support and oppose the 100 MPs Bill. In order to get the best of both options, I propose the following:
Completely separate the electorate and party vote. Candidates may stand as electorate or List MP, not both. STV both formats.
Stick 100 electorate MPs in the Legislature of the House of Representatives with a primary focus on delivering the best policy possible through the select committee process.
Stick 30 - 40 List MPs in an Upper House executive, thus providing the ideological check and balance required by the anachronistic party system, while limiting its power to wreck considered and reasonable legislation proposed by the Lower House. Remove the 5 percent threshold completely.
No more overhangs. More mana for electorate MPs, who are currently subsumed by the pseudo-democratic Party Vote. Most importantly, it provides for the more consensual approach to legislative action that the public have been screaming out for in the referenda of 1992 and 1999.
(Originally posted 30/5/06)
The Royal Commission on the Electoral System in 1986 got it wrong. STV should have been the recommendation, proportionality balanced with effective government. Instead they chose MMP, the German model that would prevent fanatic extremists from gaining power. Yet here we are, still stuck with Winston P and Chairman Jim. Instead of an evolution to STV in local body and national elections, the MMP anomoly has contributed to a mesmerizingly complicated governance plan. People are faced with up to three different electoral systems. Tick this, number that, pick a colour. Only a technocrat's logic could justify this as making it simpler for the governed.
By the Royal Commission's own terms of reference, MMP has not improved constituent representation. Going from 99 electorates in 1993 to 69 in 2005 has not seen a corresponding improvement in representation of anything other than party machinery. MMP has not stalled the decline in political party membership. Voter turnout last year confirmed this abyss between the party theory and the participatory reality. People haven't cared this little since 1919, the last time turnout hit 80 percent. Oops, I tell a lie. 2002 was worse with only 77 perecent legitimacy.
The Commission's second aim of representing NZ as a whole is arguable. There are indisputably more women in parliament than under FPP. But perhaps more women were going to be in parliament anyway because of changing public attitudes irregardless of MMP. 16 of the 39 women MPs are electorate representatives. But why stop at gender balance? If MPs truly reflect NZ, half the country must be unionists and teachers, while the other half are lawyers, accountants, doctors and farmers. Where are the 24 MPs who defend Kiwis who smoke tobacco, or the 15 MPs who admit smoking pot in the last year? Where are the six MPs who represent the unemployed? If the median age of NZers is 35 years, why is the median age of MPs closer to 70? If MMP provides a reflection of NZ, it is through a very narrow prism.
Effective government has suffered because of this illusion of representativeness. Helen Clark is facing this dilemma right now. Sure, the central committees sliced and diced the party list to get the appropriate gender and ethnicity balance. Unfortunately, it has come at the expense of selecting the best people fit to hold ministerial warrants. It is a triumph of form over function. We have a 120 member parliament yet there's still not enough talent to spread around the executive.
And what an executive. As DPF points out in his draft submission, cabinet has expanded to record size. This phenomenon is entirely due to having a larger parliament. It is no coincidence that there are 25 to 26 ministers in Labour's caucus of 50. Super-sized executives first appeared after Labour's landslide victory in 1972, when the party held 55 out of 87 seats. Cabinet comprised 20 members of caucus, just shy of today's record setter. Back then, a simple majority wasn't needed. Twenty ministers was considered a sufficient scrum to push caucus along. Muldoon didn't need a large executive to keep his caucus under control, as he bullied his way to a majority. 1984 came along and Lange's 56 person caucus saw a return to 20 ministers. In 1987, cabinet expanded to 23 out of a caucus of 57.
A decade later, MMP made huge executives the norm rather than the exception. Faced with mainly minority governments, it is political suicide not to have an executive majority in caucus. Without a simple majority, a backbencher backlash becomes an all too real possibility. If the Royal Commission's suggestion of increasing the size of parliament to 140 MPs went ahead, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to witness an executive of 35-40. Conversely, lowering the number of MPs to 100 would cause a corresponding drop in the size of cabinet.
One way to stop this all happening would be to cap the size of the executive. DPF reckons 20 is a good number and I could live with that. Personally, I think that at any one time there are no more than 9 useful ministries. The rest are there to fill up the ranks, hence the Ministry of Silly Walks proliferation over the last 20 years.
Would dropping the number of MPs to 100 effectively kill MMP? It depends whether you prefer a quicker or slower death I suppose. As DPF's calculations demonstrate, overhangs will become more likely over time anyway. What started out as a 65:55 split between electorate and list positions in '96 could, by 2026, evolve to a 90:30 split without any help from Barbara Stewart's Bill whatsoever. And hey, we've got an overhang this term so we might as well get used to them.
The most significant harm caused by reducing the size of the House would be in the select committees, the one place where democracy and consensus can flourish outside the party mantras. With twenty-nine MPs currently locked up in the executive, that leaves a maximum pool of 91 MPs to spread between 18 select committees. It's fair to say that they're spread very thinly as it is. Dropping to 100 MPs would leave around 80 MPs to sit in on the public feedback and discuss legislation before the ideologies get wheeled out in the debating chamber. If you amalgamated a couple of these commitees, you might retain something resembling the existing balance.
So, in summary, I both support and oppose the 100 MPs Bill. In order to get the best of both options, I propose the following:
Completely separate the electorate and party vote. Candidates may stand as electorate or List MP, not both. STV both formats.
Stick 100 electorate MPs in the Legislature of the House of Representatives with a primary focus on delivering the best policy possible through the select committee process.
Stick 30 - 40 List MPs in an Upper House executive, thus providing the ideological check and balance required by the anachronistic party system, while limiting its power to wreck considered and reasonable legislation proposed by the Lower House. Remove the 5 percent threshold completely.
No more overhangs. More mana for electorate MPs, who are currently subsumed by the pseudo-democratic Party Vote. Most importantly, it provides for the more consensual approach to legislative action that the public have been screaming out for in the referenda of 1992 and 1999.
(Originally posted 30/5/06)
Power grab
The Wellington City Council is calling for submissions on how the next local body elections will work. Judging from how the proposals are laid out, the Council is hoping to destroy the left-wing bloc once and for all.
At present, 14 Councillors represent five wards; Lambton, Onslow/Western, Northern, Eastern and Southern. In spite of the Local Government Commission strongly recommending that "grouping together two or more communities of interest that share few commonalities should be avoided," it hasn't stopped Council pushing for an amalgamation of wards.
Now:
Possible future:
WCC doesn't stop there. The election of at-large councillors is pushed as the preferred model, making the idea of wards altogether irrelevant. Such a system would mean that the whole of Wellington could be represented by a wunch of bankers who could corner the market due to the large cost and canvassing hurdles faced by their lesser financed competitors.
There is also a review of the community board system. Community boards act in much the same way as elected reps of DHBs. That is, they carry the blame for whatever policy they are handed by their superiors. At present, only two community boards exist. Makara/Ohariu has 6 elected reps at a ratio of 1 for every 164 residents. Tawa has 8 reps, 1 for every 2,417 residents. The Council's discussion paper suggests that all wards have community boards, at a ratio of 1 member for every 6,000 odd residents (except Makara/Ohariu which will maintain a 1:245 ratio).
Submissions close 31 May. Have your say before the power-hungries gerrymander themselves into a fiefdom.
(Originally posted 18/5/06)
At present, 14 Councillors represent five wards; Lambton, Onslow/Western, Northern, Eastern and Southern. In spite of the Local Government Commission strongly recommending that "grouping together two or more communities of interest that share few commonalities should be avoided," it hasn't stopped Council pushing for an amalgamation of wards.
Now:
Possible future:
WCC doesn't stop there. The election of at-large councillors is pushed as the preferred model, making the idea of wards altogether irrelevant. Such a system would mean that the whole of Wellington could be represented by a wunch of bankers who could corner the market due to the large cost and canvassing hurdles faced by their lesser financed competitors.
There is also a review of the community board system. Community boards act in much the same way as elected reps of DHBs. That is, they carry the blame for whatever policy they are handed by their superiors. At present, only two community boards exist. Makara/Ohariu has 6 elected reps at a ratio of 1 for every 164 residents. Tawa has 8 reps, 1 for every 2,417 residents. The Council's discussion paper suggests that all wards have community boards, at a ratio of 1 member for every 6,000 odd residents (except Makara/Ohariu which will maintain a 1:245 ratio).
Submissions close 31 May. Have your say before the power-hungries gerrymander themselves into a fiefdom.
(Originally posted 18/5/06)
Does your dad own a brewery?
One time, after getting sozzled at a Richard Prebble birthday barbecue bash, I tried to beg and plead my way into an invite-only Deborah Coddington bash being held at Sky City. All supplications failed, and I ended up going across to the Mexican Cafe where I was asked to strip for a Hen's Party and got free tequila all night. In retrospect, this was definitely a better move.
This was in the days when Act was still a force to be reckoned with. Debs was the rising star of Act, possibly the next leader. Smart, articulate, formerly married to Alistair Taylor, the publisher of the definitive guide to NZ sex and social behaviour Down Under the Plum Trees. Deborah Coddington was the saviour of Act, a truth-seeking social and economic liberal. Alas, it all went to pieces. This partly explains the blog vitriol aimed at her NZ Herald columns. Like Lucifer getting kicked out of heaven, it's a long way to fall.
Her latest column has been predictably savaged. I have a little to add, in regards to Debs' restaurant analogy. The only reason the Chateau Tongariro survived after its sale was by the very deep pockets of Madame Lo, who owns it, and diversifying into backpackers accommodation. It sometimes plays host to the stupidly rich, such as a brewery dude who hired the place one weekend for his son's wedding, kitting it out with his own staff and furniture. This luxurious white elephant has not an iota in common with the Telecom thing. Deborah confuses monopoly with uniqueness. They are not the same values.
(Originally posted 15/5/06)
This was in the days when Act was still a force to be reckoned with. Debs was the rising star of Act, possibly the next leader. Smart, articulate, formerly married to Alistair Taylor, the publisher of the definitive guide to NZ sex and social behaviour Down Under the Plum Trees. Deborah Coddington was the saviour of Act, a truth-seeking social and economic liberal. Alas, it all went to pieces. This partly explains the blog vitriol aimed at her NZ Herald columns. Like Lucifer getting kicked out of heaven, it's a long way to fall.
Her latest column has been predictably savaged. I have a little to add, in regards to Debs' restaurant analogy. The only reason the Chateau Tongariro survived after its sale was by the very deep pockets of Madame Lo, who owns it, and diversifying into backpackers accommodation. It sometimes plays host to the stupidly rich, such as a brewery dude who hired the place one weekend for his son's wedding, kitting it out with his own staff and furniture. This luxurious white elephant has not an iota in common with the Telecom thing. Deborah confuses monopoly with uniqueness. They are not the same values.
(Originally posted 15/5/06)
Sheep in wolf's clothing
It's illegal to impersonate a police officer, unless you work for the police. Hot on the heels of the smoking causes blindness bullshit, I get the overwhelming impression that the government is 'using confusion as a marketing tool'. They are not being 'straight up'.
(Originally posted 11/5/06)
(Originally posted 11/5/06)
Masturbation, sorry, *smoking* causes blindness
Is it a coincidence that the new suggested health warnings look a bit Clockwork Orangey?
It might convince Australians to quit, but us Kiwis will just stick with alternative arrangements such as cigarette cases and tobacco pouches.
(Originally posted 10/5/06)
It might convince Australians to quit, but us Kiwis will just stick with alternative arrangements such as cigarette cases and tobacco pouches.
(Originally posted 10/5/06)
The Hunting of the Nark
Fran O'Sullivan provides her own terms of reference for the inquiry into the Telecom leak. Highlights include:
Was the billion-dollar leaker working for Telecom back [in 2003, when the loop was not unbundled] and was he or she part of a nexus of well-connected players paid from the telco's alleged $30 million Government relations budget?
Which business organisations does Telecom belong to and help fund?
How many MPs hold Telecom shares through their trusts and are frequent guests of Telecom?
Investigate how many former Beehive advisers are paid lobbyists or consultants to Telecom.
(Originally posted 10/5/06)
Was the billion-dollar leaker working for Telecom back [in 2003, when the loop was not unbundled] and was he or she part of a nexus of well-connected players paid from the telco's alleged $30 million Government relations budget?
Which business organisations does Telecom belong to and help fund?
How many MPs hold Telecom shares through their trusts and are frequent guests of Telecom?
Investigate how many former Beehive advisers are paid lobbyists or consultants to Telecom.
(Originally posted 10/5/06)
Being There
I hope tomorrow's dailies shed more light on the context of Teresa Gattung's comments at 'a conference'. Bonus points to Russell Brown for bringing such incendiary evidence to light with the requisite caveats. It begs many questions which the audio submitter or, more importantly, Telecom's CEO must address. I wonder how long it will be before the corporates, like movie theatres, ban recording devices at conferences. I wonder if their employees will object.
Likewise, thank Dagg for the TV3 cameraman who caught NZ's answer to Rodney King. No way this would have ever turned up on Motorway Patrol. Whatever faith I had in the police went down the toilet in 2002 when I was home invaded by them. These days, I have more trust in my neighbours or my dealer. Hell, even my lawyer's got more respect. It's good that the public are finally clicking that a monopoly on violence breeds its own disgrace.
It also tickles my brain that sub-atomic particle theory is shown on this scale. Recording an event changes its outcome. "You had to be there" as anthropic principle.
(Originally posted 8/5/06)
Likewise, thank Dagg for the TV3 cameraman who caught NZ's answer to Rodney King. No way this would have ever turned up on Motorway Patrol. Whatever faith I had in the police went down the toilet in 2002 when I was home invaded by them. These days, I have more trust in my neighbours or my dealer. Hell, even my lawyer's got more respect. It's good that the public are finally clicking that a monopoly on violence breeds its own disgrace.
It also tickles my brain that sub-atomic particle theory is shown on this scale. Recording an event changes its outcome. "You had to be there" as anthropic principle.
(Originally posted 8/5/06)
Scars on Sunday
Self-mutilation is today's theme in the SST's Focus section. Michelle A'Court admits to dysthymia, a feeling that can't be touched. Rosemary McLeod dredges up a headfuck of hidden memories. Tony Wall reports on Cathy rising out of the ashes of Sam, while Frederico Monsalve dissects a couple of books on happiness.
There is no such thing as a happy comedian. The sense of humour is a survival mechanism, talent by necessity. Growing up in Levin would do it to you, as Michelle A'Court's case attests to. It's particularly interesting reading how she handled her shrink like an audience for a while. It reminds me of the time I checked out a shrink up in Orkland. Instead of humour, I threw Jung and Bertrand Russell at him.
Miss Tigger swears by Aropax. She's been on it for years and says she hardly ever cuts herself up any more. She's unnerved me on occasions by running her nails up her arms leaving bloody lines, so it's a comfort to both of us that she feels more at peace. I ask her every now and then if she should get off Aropax and see whether her improved state is her making or if it's the Aropax. It's the Aropax, she says. I think she sells herself short, but she's happier so who am I to nag.
I knew Miss Mountain Goat back when she was best friends with a then girlfriend, Miss Dancing Dragon. Unbeknownst to me and DD at the time, MG had been raped on a regularly basis by her father since she was 4. It all came out in her late teens, unravelling to the family at large and her friends. No court case was held. Justice was served elsewhere. Her father was present at her 21st, and all of MG's male friends present were bristling. Had MG whispered the right words, there were plenty of people willing to rip this bastard to shreds and bury pieces of him in the backblocks. MG knew this. Her father knew this.
Nothing happened. She married her uni boyfriend a few years later, a true yin-yang thing. Miss Mountain Goat now lives in Switzerland with her identical husband. It is the memory of people like MG who give me the strength when all else fails. Happiness is possible. In the meantime, in the dreamtime, I'll settle for beauty.
(Originally posted 7/5/06)
There is no such thing as a happy comedian. The sense of humour is a survival mechanism, talent by necessity. Growing up in Levin would do it to you, as Michelle A'Court's case attests to. It's particularly interesting reading how she handled her shrink like an audience for a while. It reminds me of the time I checked out a shrink up in Orkland. Instead of humour, I threw Jung and Bertrand Russell at him.
Miss Tigger swears by Aropax. She's been on it for years and says she hardly ever cuts herself up any more. She's unnerved me on occasions by running her nails up her arms leaving bloody lines, so it's a comfort to both of us that she feels more at peace. I ask her every now and then if she should get off Aropax and see whether her improved state is her making or if it's the Aropax. It's the Aropax, she says. I think she sells herself short, but she's happier so who am I to nag.
I knew Miss Mountain Goat back when she was best friends with a then girlfriend, Miss Dancing Dragon. Unbeknownst to me and DD at the time, MG had been raped on a regularly basis by her father since she was 4. It all came out in her late teens, unravelling to the family at large and her friends. No court case was held. Justice was served elsewhere. Her father was present at her 21st, and all of MG's male friends present were bristling. Had MG whispered the right words, there were plenty of people willing to rip this bastard to shreds and bury pieces of him in the backblocks. MG knew this. Her father knew this.
Nothing happened. She married her uni boyfriend a few years later, a true yin-yang thing. Miss Mountain Goat now lives in Switzerland with her identical husband. It is the memory of people like MG who give me the strength when all else fails. Happiness is possible. In the meantime, in the dreamtime, I'll settle for beauty.
(Originally posted 7/5/06)
J-Day
In spite of 31 years of the Misuse of Drugs Act, cannabis is NZ's third most popular recreational substance after alcohol and nicotine. According to the APHRU 2001 Drugs Survey (the latest stats available), 52 percent of Kiwis 15-45 years old have tried marijuana. 20 percent, or around 800,000 people, had some in the preceding 12 months. 70 percent of 19 year olds had a go. While Captain Sensible and Chairman Jim stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala," tens of millions of dollars are thrown at 'supply control,' a campaign that even the cops admit is ultimately futile.
Today is International Cannabis Freedom Day, or J-Day in Kiwispeak. It's a day to remember that that laws should reflect societal norms, not try and twist the people to fit the law.
In related news, you can help foil the drug sniffers by wearing Cannabis Flower perfume (Tip Boing Boing). If you get searched without a warrant by the cops, you might then be able to counter-sue for wrongful search!
(Originally posted 5/6/06)
Today is International Cannabis Freedom Day, or J-Day in Kiwispeak. It's a day to remember that that laws should reflect societal norms, not try and twist the people to fit the law.
In related news, you can help foil the drug sniffers by wearing Cannabis Flower perfume (Tip Boing Boing). If you get searched without a warrant by the cops, you might then be able to counter-sue for wrongful search!
(Originally posted 5/6/06)
Free advertising
Hell Pizza's imaginative leftovers box has been Boing Boinged. Way to go, dudes!
(Originally posted 5/5/06)
(Originally posted 5/5/06)
Who da bitch now?
The Backbencher pub has unveiled a 'revision' of the Helen Clark & Winston Peters puppets:
Originally posted 4/5/06
Originally posted 4/5/06
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)