I have been listening to the Texas version of talkback radio and I must say I prefer it to Newstalk ZB and Radio Live and the likes. While the people are absolutely cray (there is no other words to describe it), for some reason that kind of crazy talk sounds normal in Texas. It doesn’t seem to behoove Kiwis.
There are lots of crazy opinions floating about namely that many don’t believe Assad is actually behind the chemical weapons attack. There is a belief that the rebels (ie Al Qaeda) are behind it and therefore the US has no business going into another war. There’s also the minor detail of the need for Congressional approval before any action can be taken.
The recurring phrase I’m hearing as justification against military action is “look how Iraq and Afghanistan turned out, why are we going into war again!”
This is extraordinary. I was in the United States between 2001 and 2003, living in the Midwest, and I remember that opposition to either war (Afghanistan and Iraq) was seen as not supporting the troops, un-American and un-patriotic, and downright evil. At the very least you had to declared that you “supported the troops” to prevent the Vietnam like treatment of soldiers but that movement effectively silenced opposition to war. It is odd to see that people have finally woken up to the idea that those wars may have not been the greatest response to the terrorism/WMD ‘threat’ at the time.
In all honestly I don’t have a position on what should happen in Syria except that something should happen. How can I? I don’t get the intelligence briefings. I don’t understand what is actually happening on the ground. All I know that are the images of the lifeless bodies. I know THAT is unacceptable. The fact that chemical and biological weapons even exist is a terrifying thought. Where valuable scientific resources should be geared towards finding cures for AIDS and cancer, our society makes weapons to kill children.
What is happening in the Middle East is a complicated situation with no easy answers in the short term. What fascinates me is how Americans are reacting to this situation now compared to 10 years ago. They have war fatigue and they are tired of losing. They believe their military is spread thin, they don’t believe they are going to win this and they have very little faith in the information they are getting from their leaders. I don’t know if the blind trust they used to have in their President is gone because they don’t trust Obama specifically or if that trust was ruined by Bush but it certainly isn’t there now.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Monday, August 26, 2013
Labour Leadership - an excuse to rant
So after a 20 month battle with the polls, David Shearer resigned as leader of the Labour Party. I’ve worked for David and Phil Goff and I know being Leader of the Opposition is extremely challenging. While everyone likes to think it is hilarious to call Russell Norman the Leader of the Opposition, he does not face nearly as much scrutiny as a Labour leader does. And perhaps that is how it should be. Phil Goff and David Shearer faced a lot of criticism and they knew it would come with the job. Leader of the Opposition is a position that is necessary for democracy and when one takes it on, one takes on a huge responsibility. That said, David Shearer was elected to Parliament in 2009 and in a very short time he tackled one of the hardest public service jobs out there and I believe he did so honourably.
Where to now?
We have 3 people vying to be the new Leader of the Opposition and while I have opinions on all three, having worked in the Leader’s office while they have been MPs, what I think about them as people hardly matters. So I won’t be dishing out any secrets here. I do think however, that this is the last chance Labour has before the election to get the leadership right. In the lead up to the election people will love some policies and they will hate some. Some issues will be more interesting than others. Gaffes may define an election or they may be forgotten. How all of these matters are handled by the leader will be the defining aspect of the election.
For those in the left, this is an important election. We will have had 2 terms of a National Government enacting policies that are less than palatable. Whether it was the GCSB, the Sky City deal, the Hobbit deal, the erosion of workers’ rights, the erosion of our environmental responsibility, the lack of any economic growth that is measurable, deplorable state of income inequality, the fact that child poverty is even a slight concern let alone now a major problem, there are plenty of issues for us to fight and win on. Whoever becomes the leader must take on this responsibility knowing that they carry this burden on their shoulders. John Key can accuse Labour of being left wing. He will do that no matter who the leader is. What he thinks really doesn't matter.
I note that there has been a lot of discussion on the voting of the new leader. The ‘right wing’ blogs are busy calculating who has what percentage of the power. I won’t be voting on the leader and frankly I don’t really care who has how much power. I think it’s pretty amazing that anyone other than the caucus has power. I’m not a hard core unionist but I know enough history to know that if they want to have a say in how the leader of the major left wing party is chosen they will have it by votes or by other channels. This at least is transparent. I commend it. They are also weighing in on the people themselves. Matthew Hooton was practically going to have an aneurysm yesterday (has someone checked up on him?). The general voting public doesn't spend time reading blogs (it will be a miracle if more than 1 person reads this), they are too busy struggling to create a better life for themselves and their children. Hidden amongst the 270,000 children living in poverty is a sleeping artist who could only dream of studying art in France. While the Government can't provide that, it can invest more in the arts here in NZ (this is an example not a policy expectation). We shouldn't all have to study engineering to contribute to society (yes, this is a dig at Steven Joyce).
I digress.
Basically my hope is that the candidates remember for the next 3 weeks what the big picture is and what needs to be achieved in 2014 no matter what the outcome. While I am excited for an open campaign, it should be one that allows the activists, the supporters, the members, and the caucus to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get straight to work on September 16 for whoever the leader is. There is no way the public will put up with another internal struggle, a staff ‘re-shuffle’, a gimmick with no value. But there are plenty of substantive issues that we in the left need to fight for and we need someone to be the face of that fight.
I am what they call a millennial. Someone who has left New Zealand reluctantly in search of a brighter future somewhere else after 5 years of disappointment. I want to come home and I want a good reason to do it.
Where to now?
We have 3 people vying to be the new Leader of the Opposition and while I have opinions on all three, having worked in the Leader’s office while they have been MPs, what I think about them as people hardly matters. So I won’t be dishing out any secrets here. I do think however, that this is the last chance Labour has before the election to get the leadership right. In the lead up to the election people will love some policies and they will hate some. Some issues will be more interesting than others. Gaffes may define an election or they may be forgotten. How all of these matters are handled by the leader will be the defining aspect of the election.
For those in the left, this is an important election. We will have had 2 terms of a National Government enacting policies that are less than palatable. Whether it was the GCSB, the Sky City deal, the Hobbit deal, the erosion of workers’ rights, the erosion of our environmental responsibility, the lack of any economic growth that is measurable, deplorable state of income inequality, the fact that child poverty is even a slight concern let alone now a major problem, there are plenty of issues for us to fight and win on. Whoever becomes the leader must take on this responsibility knowing that they carry this burden on their shoulders. John Key can accuse Labour of being left wing. He will do that no matter who the leader is. What he thinks really doesn't matter.
I note that there has been a lot of discussion on the voting of the new leader. The ‘right wing’ blogs are busy calculating who has what percentage of the power. I won’t be voting on the leader and frankly I don’t really care who has how much power. I think it’s pretty amazing that anyone other than the caucus has power. I’m not a hard core unionist but I know enough history to know that if they want to have a say in how the leader of the major left wing party is chosen they will have it by votes or by other channels. This at least is transparent. I commend it. They are also weighing in on the people themselves. Matthew Hooton was practically going to have an aneurysm yesterday (has someone checked up on him?). The general voting public doesn't spend time reading blogs (it will be a miracle if more than 1 person reads this), they are too busy struggling to create a better life for themselves and their children. Hidden amongst the 270,000 children living in poverty is a sleeping artist who could only dream of studying art in France. While the Government can't provide that, it can invest more in the arts here in NZ (this is an example not a policy expectation). We shouldn't all have to study engineering to contribute to society (yes, this is a dig at Steven Joyce).
I digress.
Basically my hope is that the candidates remember for the next 3 weeks what the big picture is and what needs to be achieved in 2014 no matter what the outcome. While I am excited for an open campaign, it should be one that allows the activists, the supporters, the members, and the caucus to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get straight to work on September 16 for whoever the leader is. There is no way the public will put up with another internal struggle, a staff ‘re-shuffle’, a gimmick with no value. But there are plenty of substantive issues that we in the left need to fight for and we need someone to be the face of that fight.
I am what they call a millennial. Someone who has left New Zealand reluctantly in search of a brighter future somewhere else after 5 years of disappointment. I want to come home and I want a good reason to do it.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
10 Questions for the PM
I know that the GCSB is all but a Dunne deal but as one of those concerned voters who is not an expert in the area (like 99.99% of all voters) I still have some lingering questions. Is there a journalist out there who wants to ask these questions on our behalf? I acknowledge that some of these questions have been asked. But I'd like to see them asked again.
1. What is the motivation for rushing this legislation through? ie. Why is there no time for an enquiry? Why are there not more discussions to ensure bi-partisan support for a piece of legislation that has such huge constitutional significance? [A little history lesson: When the Criminal Proceedure Bill went through which overhauled the justice system, the then Justice Minister Simon Power sought extensive consultation with the Opposition which was carried on by Minister Judith Collins].
Is it a- because the GCSB messed up in 88 cases and they are trying to close of legal liabilities b-because the Govt has made promises to foreign governments to cooperate c-have we been asked by foreign govt to enact these legislastions (+TCIS) if yes, then what was the nature of those negotiations ie what do we get in return?
2. John Key said that these powers were needed to thwart future terrorist attacks like the Boston bombing. Why with all the powers that the intelligence agencies of the United States has, were they not able to prevent those attacks?
3. The threats to New Zealand are classified. Fair enough. The operations of GCSB are also classified. Fair enough too. The oversight of the agency rests with the Prime Minister. Ok, acceptable. On what basis then, are New Zealanders meant to hand over these powers – blind trust in John Key and ALL future Prime Ministers?
4. For whatever reason whether it was confusion or honest mistake or deliberate disregard of the law, the GCSB has made mistakes, what steps is the Government taking to reform the organization to prevent future mistakes/confusion/disregard for the law or is that classified too?
5. In what ways are the GCSB systems superior to other Government agencies which will ensure they will not go down the same path as ACC, MSD, Immigration NZ, CYFs etc etc in terms of our private information that the GCSB inevitably will collect? If so, will they be sharing those secrets with other agencies if not, why not?
6. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. What happens if you DO have something to hide which is not illegal? We hide things from our family, friends, co-workers all the time. Why would we want the Government know about our personal life or is John Key saying that we have no right to hold have anything personal anymore?
7. We retrospectively changed the legislation when the Police conducted video surveillance that was contrary to the law, we are now changing the legislation because the GCSB has done something contrary to the law (whether by mistake/confusion/disregard). How can the public have confidence in the rule of law when the perception is that law doesn’t apply to those who enforce the law?
8. The Prime Minister has claimed that the Law Society, the Human Rights Commission, Dame Salmond, the Privacy Commissioner, the former head of GCSB, Constitutional expert Sir Geoffrey Palmer are wrong on their analysis and he is right. The advice on which he has formed that opinion is presumably classified. In the absence of that, if the public cannot have confidence in the above people/institutions on this matter, can they have confidence on them on any other matter and if not, is the Prime Minister suggesting that we take his word on every matter and would he find that notion acceptable if anyone else other than himself was Prime Minister? Would he have that faith in any other Prime Minister? What about in a Labour led government?
9. Who was the willing seller and who was the buyer in the Dunne/Key GCSB deal? What was sold and what was bought?
10. The legislation does not prevent the information from being shared with foreign agencies. The PM has provided no explicit assurances that it will not be shared. New Zealanders are fundamentally opposed to that, given the recent revelations on how the information is stored and used. Presumably however, in exchange for this information sharing we are getting something in return. What is it? (This is related to Q1)
I personally believe that the PM has backed himself into a corner where he now cannot back down without looking foolish. This is the part where in an argument a party will realize they are wrong but to save face will continue the same argument. It happens. But I feel the time has come where the shaming of the PM is less important than stopping this law from passing. Hysterical name calling of the PM will only strengthen his resolve. We need to give him an out. He needs an out that would be reason for this to not go through other than all the reasons that are already out there regarding why it shouldn’t. It needs to be something else. I suggest that all of the smart and intelligent people out there are need to sit down and think about how we can give the PM an out that will make him stop and reconsider without losing his dignity.
1. What is the motivation for rushing this legislation through? ie. Why is there no time for an enquiry? Why are there not more discussions to ensure bi-partisan support for a piece of legislation that has such huge constitutional significance? [A little history lesson: When the Criminal Proceedure Bill went through which overhauled the justice system, the then Justice Minister Simon Power sought extensive consultation with the Opposition which was carried on by Minister Judith Collins].
Is it a- because the GCSB messed up in 88 cases and they are trying to close of legal liabilities b-because the Govt has made promises to foreign governments to cooperate c-have we been asked by foreign govt to enact these legislastions (+TCIS) if yes, then what was the nature of those negotiations ie what do we get in return?
2. John Key said that these powers were needed to thwart future terrorist attacks like the Boston bombing. Why with all the powers that the intelligence agencies of the United States has, were they not able to prevent those attacks?
3. The threats to New Zealand are classified. Fair enough. The operations of GCSB are also classified. Fair enough too. The oversight of the agency rests with the Prime Minister. Ok, acceptable. On what basis then, are New Zealanders meant to hand over these powers – blind trust in John Key and ALL future Prime Ministers?
4. For whatever reason whether it was confusion or honest mistake or deliberate disregard of the law, the GCSB has made mistakes, what steps is the Government taking to reform the organization to prevent future mistakes/confusion/disregard for the law or is that classified too?
5. In what ways are the GCSB systems superior to other Government agencies which will ensure they will not go down the same path as ACC, MSD, Immigration NZ, CYFs etc etc in terms of our private information that the GCSB inevitably will collect? If so, will they be sharing those secrets with other agencies if not, why not?
6. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. What happens if you DO have something to hide which is not illegal? We hide things from our family, friends, co-workers all the time. Why would we want the Government know about our personal life or is John Key saying that we have no right to hold have anything personal anymore?
7. We retrospectively changed the legislation when the Police conducted video surveillance that was contrary to the law, we are now changing the legislation because the GCSB has done something contrary to the law (whether by mistake/confusion/disregard). How can the public have confidence in the rule of law when the perception is that law doesn’t apply to those who enforce the law?
8. The Prime Minister has claimed that the Law Society, the Human Rights Commission, Dame Salmond, the Privacy Commissioner, the former head of GCSB, Constitutional expert Sir Geoffrey Palmer are wrong on their analysis and he is right. The advice on which he has formed that opinion is presumably classified. In the absence of that, if the public cannot have confidence in the above people/institutions on this matter, can they have confidence on them on any other matter and if not, is the Prime Minister suggesting that we take his word on every matter and would he find that notion acceptable if anyone else other than himself was Prime Minister? Would he have that faith in any other Prime Minister? What about in a Labour led government?
9. Who was the willing seller and who was the buyer in the Dunne/Key GCSB deal? What was sold and what was bought?
10. The legislation does not prevent the information from being shared with foreign agencies. The PM has provided no explicit assurances that it will not be shared. New Zealanders are fundamentally opposed to that, given the recent revelations on how the information is stored and used. Presumably however, in exchange for this information sharing we are getting something in return. What is it? (This is related to Q1)
I personally believe that the PM has backed himself into a corner where he now cannot back down without looking foolish. This is the part where in an argument a party will realize they are wrong but to save face will continue the same argument. It happens. But I feel the time has come where the shaming of the PM is less important than stopping this law from passing. Hysterical name calling of the PM will only strengthen his resolve. We need to give him an out. He needs an out that would be reason for this to not go through other than all the reasons that are already out there regarding why it shouldn’t. It needs to be something else. I suggest that all of the smart and intelligent people out there are need to sit down and think about how we can give the PM an out that will make him stop and reconsider without losing his dignity.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Campbell Live and Democracy - 50 Shades of Political Participation
It has been a while since I have blogged mostly because my previous employment didn't allow me to. But now that I am going to be a poor uni student living in my parents' basement (metaphorically of course), I figure its time for me to do something other than be perpetually outraged at friends and family. I moved to Austin on Saturday but haven't stopped following the GCSB/Snapper/Child abuse saga in between my jet-lagged naps.
There have now been two episodes in New Zealand on the public perception of the GCSB. I must say I was quite surprised that people were 1) willing to be on TV talking about it and 2) had a position either way. A New Zealand journalist posted on FB wondering if people who were outraged about John Key had even read the bill. Even though I am a politics nerd and a legislation geek, apart from the offensive section, I admit I have not read the whole bill. Nor as a voting citizen I believe I should have to! There is plenty being written about it and plenty being talked about it and I think I am smart enough to come up with a pretty intelligent position without reading the Bill itself. I can also understand the Parliamentary processes under which it is being passed i.e. with a 1 vote majority and in a very short amount of time. I can see that the select committee submissions are largely critical and that is enough for me to have an idea that his is not a good thing. I have taken the time to read what Thomas Beagle and the Law Society have had to say about it and I have read Dame Anne's piece in the Herald.
I commend Campbell Live for taking on issues like Child Poverty, Christchurch Earthquake and now GCSB, issues that the Government wants to fix via good PR rather than substantive policy work. Issues that ARE political because ideology dictates outcomes. There is an attitude within the current government that because of the election outcome, there is a carte blanche to do whatever they please. The recent polls aren't helpful either. They only seek to reinforce the government's position and weaken the opposition's resolve. I am not a polls analyst nor do I have some kind of radical position on the way they are done or how often or the purpose. But there is no doubt that they contribute to the confidence not only of those who govern but the voters as well.
Coming back to my original point which the readers might not yet see, I think that it is great that Campbell Live is canvassing the views of the ordinary people. I don't think that every person has to be an expert. We don't have to be an expert to vote. I think this is great for encouraging public engagement, which is really important in a healthy democracy.
There have now been two episodes in New Zealand on the public perception of the GCSB. I must say I was quite surprised that people were 1) willing to be on TV talking about it and 2) had a position either way. A New Zealand journalist posted on FB wondering if people who were outraged about John Key had even read the bill. Even though I am a politics nerd and a legislation geek, apart from the offensive section, I admit I have not read the whole bill. Nor as a voting citizen I believe I should have to! There is plenty being written about it and plenty being talked about it and I think I am smart enough to come up with a pretty intelligent position without reading the Bill itself. I can also understand the Parliamentary processes under which it is being passed i.e. with a 1 vote majority and in a very short amount of time. I can see that the select committee submissions are largely critical and that is enough for me to have an idea that his is not a good thing. I have taken the time to read what Thomas Beagle and the Law Society have had to say about it and I have read Dame Anne's piece in the Herald.
I commend Campbell Live for taking on issues like Child Poverty, Christchurch Earthquake and now GCSB, issues that the Government wants to fix via good PR rather than substantive policy work. Issues that ARE political because ideology dictates outcomes. There is an attitude within the current government that because of the election outcome, there is a carte blanche to do whatever they please. The recent polls aren't helpful either. They only seek to reinforce the government's position and weaken the opposition's resolve. I am not a polls analyst nor do I have some kind of radical position on the way they are done or how often or the purpose. But there is no doubt that they contribute to the confidence not only of those who govern but the voters as well.
Coming back to my original point which the readers might not yet see, I think that it is great that Campbell Live is canvassing the views of the ordinary people. I don't think that every person has to be an expert. We don't have to be an expert to vote. I think this is great for encouraging public engagement, which is really important in a healthy democracy.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Simple Explanations
Those who know me well know that I love politics. Not just domestic politics and not even just International events. For me politics is a manifestation of human behaviour in a larger more flamboyant scale. And I do love studying human behaviour because after all it is human actions that make up life. If you know me we, you also know that I believe the biggest fight of our generation wont be the war against terrorism or drugs, it won't be the fight for civil rights, it will be the right to information. Lack of information drives poor choices and poor choices leave people helpless and in a weaker position to their counterparts.
Last night I was watching a tv show (Backbenches) and a very respected professor said this:
"I’ve got no particular sympathy for Gaddafi but it’s not a morality play; a lot of it is just Americans distracting the world from the fact that the Saudis, to whom they gave $20 billion, are now rolling through Bahrain putting down the rebellion there. And that of course is conveniently dropped out of the news. And point of fact, America doesn’t want any regime to change in the Middle East however dictatorial as long as it’s in their pay. Gaddafi wasn’t of course and he is dispensable. He is a wonderful distraction from what is really going on."
This quote summarises why in 2003 I wrote to my my then local paper in West Lafayaette, Indiana against the US led invasion of Iraq. The U.S. talks the civil rights talk but it walks the self interested resources requirement (oil) walk. The U.S. support for Saudi Arabia is the one reason the Middle East continues to languish in the Middle Ages. While we sit in our comfortable homes, thousands of miles away watching CNN with our superiority complexes of having civil and political rights, we can take little comfort in knowing that eventually the Middle East WILL have those rights that we take for granted but there is much more bloodshed to come and we are the complacent enablers. We are selfish people and is it any wonder that so are our leaders. Individual human behaviour magnified times a gizzilion.
Last night I was watching a tv show (Backbenches) and a very respected professor said this:
"I’ve got no particular sympathy for Gaddafi but it’s not a morality play; a lot of it is just Americans distracting the world from the fact that the Saudis, to whom they gave $20 billion, are now rolling through Bahrain putting down the rebellion there. And that of course is conveniently dropped out of the news. And point of fact, America doesn’t want any regime to change in the Middle East however dictatorial as long as it’s in their pay. Gaddafi wasn’t of course and he is dispensable. He is a wonderful distraction from what is really going on."
This quote summarises why in 2003 I wrote to my my then local paper in West Lafayaette, Indiana against the US led invasion of Iraq. The U.S. talks the civil rights talk but it walks the self interested resources requirement (oil) walk. The U.S. support for Saudi Arabia is the one reason the Middle East continues to languish in the Middle Ages. While we sit in our comfortable homes, thousands of miles away watching CNN with our superiority complexes of having civil and political rights, we can take little comfort in knowing that eventually the Middle East WILL have those rights that we take for granted but there is much more bloodshed to come and we are the complacent enablers. We are selfish people and is it any wonder that so are our leaders. Individual human behaviour magnified times a gizzilion.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
John Key does not need the gay vote
I do not believe that John Key is a principled man. He might live by certain principles but just because he smiles and waves, perches on a wall to talk to tourists or calls an election 10 months out, does not make him a principled man. He is the Right Honourable Prime Minister of New Zealand and the Leader of the National Party but his stance on gay rights in New Zealand coupled with his unguarded outburst in Parliament about beneficiaries has finally what led me to believe that this man lacks principles. John Key was voted into Parliament and as Prime Minister with not only support but he continues to have the support of the public 2 years after the election. I don’t think that John Key has been instrumental in any measurable changes to the lives of Kiwis, yet the Kiwis love him.
This is a free country. We are entitled to love whomever we please even if that person happens to be John Key. The public adulation for this man is translated into polls and and these are touted by the Prime Minister in his jabs to the Opposition and are used as legitimising factors by the rest of his caucus. Unfortunately not everyone has the right to legitimately love whomever they please. While Civil Unions are legal in New Zealand, no thanks to the Prime Minister or a majority of his Cabinet, gay couples are not allowed to adopt children and they are not allowed to get married. Somehow religious people own marriage and no one else is allowed to have it unless of course they do it according to the will of the religious people. Here’s my problem with John Key – He thinks that by not rolling back gay rights that people fought to have he is doing them a favour and he should be entitled to the votes as a result. When asked if he would vote for the Civil Union bill now, he refused to answer. John Key is not only on the wrong side of history, he is proudly so. He is a straight guy with a wife and children who has no problem depriving others of the same right.
On Backbenches last week Chester Borrows (MP for Whanganui) said on the hero parade:
I’m not in support of a hero parade. Well, I am in support of a hero parade but I don’t think that’s a hero parade because actually they’re not heroes…Heroes are people like Willie Apiata. Heroes are people who have done something… I don’t think a hero is someone who wears leather shorts singing YMCA down Queen Street.
While John Key has no control over Borrows and he can say whatever he pleases, Mr Key is certainly not providing the kind of leadership that I would expect when it comes to gay rights in the year 2011.It’s not that anyone who happens to be gay is a hero by virtue of being gay, but what Mr Borrows doesn’t realise that it is a lot harder for someone to actually publicly assert they are gay when we continue to live in a homophobic society. Gay people don’t have a choice but to be gay. Apiata, heroic no doubt, chose to be in the military. I don’t need to comment on the attitudes that people have when talking about homosexuality or the language that is repeatedly used when talking about about gay men and women in many parts of this country. Homophobia is alive and well in New Zealand despite being a comparatively liberal country in many aspects. One only has to look at the recent news events to know that gays are still seen as peripherals in society rather than active members. I suppose heroism is a subjective concept but if one has to walk down the street without hiding who they are even though many have a unjustifiable negative view of who they are, then that person is a hero in my book.
As the law stands now, if one person in a gay relationship has a child, that child can grow up in that household and no one can do anything about it. But the other parent who in all other aspects is that child’s parent would have no legal rights over that child. Similarly gay parents are not ‘trusted’ to adopt children. We allow kids to grow up in unstable homes, homes that provide poor nutrition, single parent homes but two people of the same gender are not allowed to legally raise kids. That is unfair and surely Mr Key knows this to be true.
I am only writing this because as a straight person, I don’t want to be the white male who looking back 60 years form today regrets not fighting for the civil rights of blacks and women. I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history. I don’t want to have to explain to my future gay grandkids why I didn’t say anything when the government of the day blatantly made light of the plight of gay people. I don’t want to be the person that uses my faith as an excuse to make others feel like second class citizens.
If Mr Key wants gays to vote for him, he should fight for their equal rights under the law. But Mr Key is not going to do that because he doesn’t need the gay vote to win an election. So if he did make changes to his policies to take a stand for gay rights, he would have to do so on principle and not for votes. And John Key is not a principled man.
This is a free country. We are entitled to love whomever we please even if that person happens to be John Key. The public adulation for this man is translated into polls and and these are touted by the Prime Minister in his jabs to the Opposition and are used as legitimising factors by the rest of his caucus. Unfortunately not everyone has the right to legitimately love whomever they please. While Civil Unions are legal in New Zealand, no thanks to the Prime Minister or a majority of his Cabinet, gay couples are not allowed to adopt children and they are not allowed to get married. Somehow religious people own marriage and no one else is allowed to have it unless of course they do it according to the will of the religious people. Here’s my problem with John Key – He thinks that by not rolling back gay rights that people fought to have he is doing them a favour and he should be entitled to the votes as a result. When asked if he would vote for the Civil Union bill now, he refused to answer. John Key is not only on the wrong side of history, he is proudly so. He is a straight guy with a wife and children who has no problem depriving others of the same right.
On Backbenches last week Chester Borrows (MP for Whanganui) said on the hero parade:
I’m not in support of a hero parade. Well, I am in support of a hero parade but I don’t think that’s a hero parade because actually they’re not heroes…Heroes are people like Willie Apiata. Heroes are people who have done something… I don’t think a hero is someone who wears leather shorts singing YMCA down Queen Street.
While John Key has no control over Borrows and he can say whatever he pleases, Mr Key is certainly not providing the kind of leadership that I would expect when it comes to gay rights in the year 2011.It’s not that anyone who happens to be gay is a hero by virtue of being gay, but what Mr Borrows doesn’t realise that it is a lot harder for someone to actually publicly assert they are gay when we continue to live in a homophobic society. Gay people don’t have a choice but to be gay. Apiata, heroic no doubt, chose to be in the military. I don’t need to comment on the attitudes that people have when talking about homosexuality or the language that is repeatedly used when talking about about gay men and women in many parts of this country. Homophobia is alive and well in New Zealand despite being a comparatively liberal country in many aspects. One only has to look at the recent news events to know that gays are still seen as peripherals in society rather than active members. I suppose heroism is a subjective concept but if one has to walk down the street without hiding who they are even though many have a unjustifiable negative view of who they are, then that person is a hero in my book.
As the law stands now, if one person in a gay relationship has a child, that child can grow up in that household and no one can do anything about it. But the other parent who in all other aspects is that child’s parent would have no legal rights over that child. Similarly gay parents are not ‘trusted’ to adopt children. We allow kids to grow up in unstable homes, homes that provide poor nutrition, single parent homes but two people of the same gender are not allowed to legally raise kids. That is unfair and surely Mr Key knows this to be true.
I am only writing this because as a straight person, I don’t want to be the white male who looking back 60 years form today regrets not fighting for the civil rights of blacks and women. I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history. I don’t want to have to explain to my future gay grandkids why I didn’t say anything when the government of the day blatantly made light of the plight of gay people. I don’t want to be the person that uses my faith as an excuse to make others feel like second class citizens.
If Mr Key wants gays to vote for him, he should fight for their equal rights under the law. But Mr Key is not going to do that because he doesn’t need the gay vote to win an election. So if he did make changes to his policies to take a stand for gay rights, he would have to do so on principle and not for votes. And John Key is not a principled man.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Tyranny of stupidity
Sarah Palin wants “peaceful Muslims” to “refudiate” the plans to build a Mosque two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City. When terrorism occurs in the name of Islam or on behalf of all Muslims, the rest of the world along with America is quick to blame moderate Muslims for not standing up to refute and repudiate extremists and their actions. People like Sarah Palin love taking pride in the great nation that is America and it’s so called “exceptionalism” through mere words but no actions. America is a great nation because it was founded on religious tolerance and freedom. It is great because its Constitution guarantees certain rights. It is great because not only are these freedoms held inherent but there is a responsibility on all those who live in this great nation to make use of that freedom to advance society, increase the knowledge and create a more tolerant society where differences in thought, philosophy and ideas are celebrated rather than demonised. If it is assumed that Mosques “breed terrorists” as has been touted by so many opponents of the plans to build Mosques not only in NYC but all around the country, then the greatness that America has stood for, for the last couple of centuries can only be considered an illusion. If Mosques in the U.S. are breeding terrorists, then it is not a Muslim problem but an American national security problem in the same mould as Christian militants. We’re not going to stop people from building Churches just because a sect of people believes in the superiority of one race or one idea.
Moderate Muslims do not have a voice in many countries around the world the same way Christians and Jews and other minorities do not in those same countries. It is true that Christians cannot build a Church in Saudi Arabia but it is also true that moderate Muslims also do not have the freedom to educate women about their rights in Saudi Arabia either. Not allowing Christians and Jews to practice their religions, not allowing moderate Muslims to have a voice, not allowing the freedom to debate differing ideas is precisely what makes those countries intolerant, inhumane and unattractive to the rest of the world! America’s Mosques should be breeding grounds for universal human rights establishment, supremacy of diplomacy over violence and the forum for intellectual dialogue for a better world. Why does Ms. Palin assume that Muslims living in the western world haven’t lived with the same heart break of terrorism as she has? Why is Ms. Palin afraid to address Muslim Americans on the merits of strong military and low taxes? She doesn’t see Muslim Americans as American like the way she is. Who decided that moose hunting is inherently American and fasting during Ramadan isn’t? America has always been a melting pot. Whatever Americans do what is what is American. Ms. Palin seeks to have everyone believe that America was founded on her Christian principles and her understanding of capitalism and any idea that does not conform to her belief is an inherently un-American idea. The U.S. Constitution promotes “general welfare” of the public. One of the first Treaties signed by President John Adams and ratified by the U.S. Congress said –
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” – Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli (1797)
Sarah Palin said that building the Mosque in NYC is an “UNNECESSARY provocation”. No Ms. Palin. You are an UNNECESSARY provocation and an embarrassment to what America truly stands for.
Moderate Muslims do not have a voice in many countries around the world the same way Christians and Jews and other minorities do not in those same countries. It is true that Christians cannot build a Church in Saudi Arabia but it is also true that moderate Muslims also do not have the freedom to educate women about their rights in Saudi Arabia either. Not allowing Christians and Jews to practice their religions, not allowing moderate Muslims to have a voice, not allowing the freedom to debate differing ideas is precisely what makes those countries intolerant, inhumane and unattractive to the rest of the world! America’s Mosques should be breeding grounds for universal human rights establishment, supremacy of diplomacy over violence and the forum for intellectual dialogue for a better world. Why does Ms. Palin assume that Muslims living in the western world haven’t lived with the same heart break of terrorism as she has? Why is Ms. Palin afraid to address Muslim Americans on the merits of strong military and low taxes? She doesn’t see Muslim Americans as American like the way she is. Who decided that moose hunting is inherently American and fasting during Ramadan isn’t? America has always been a melting pot. Whatever Americans do what is what is American. Ms. Palin seeks to have everyone believe that America was founded on her Christian principles and her understanding of capitalism and any idea that does not conform to her belief is an inherently un-American idea. The U.S. Constitution promotes “general welfare” of the public. One of the first Treaties signed by President John Adams and ratified by the U.S. Congress said –
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” – Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli (1797)
Sarah Palin said that building the Mosque in NYC is an “UNNECESSARY provocation”. No Ms. Palin. You are an UNNECESSARY provocation and an embarrassment to what America truly stands for.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
I am sick and I am tired.... sick and tired... (1st rant of 2010 :p)
Republicans cannot abrogate their responsibility as elected officials. Democrats were just as much to blame for their inaction which lead to the economic meltdown, unnecessary wars, and complete dismembering of the U.S. constitution during the Bush years, as the Administration itself. If this government fails to provide universal health care, reform the financial system and restore justice, the Republicans will have just as much blood on their hands.
The fear and anger that is fuelling the constant opposition without merit, sense or rationality is not constructive, does not benefit the public, is irresponsible and childish. On the other hand, the Democrats need to take their Barbie dresses off, defend their position, educate the public on the merits of their policies, and actually stop cowering to people like Hannity and Bleck who are as much the Fourth Estate as Entertainment Tonight.
The United States is a country where someone like Bush gets elected twice, where Edward Kennedy is replaced by a Republican and where Sarah Palin is considered a viable candidate. Ignorance is not an excuse for mediocrity and surely the so-called greatest nation on earth can do better.
"Their (Republicans') view is if they can defeat Obama in every way imaginable, they'll come up in the midterm election and say, 'Hey, he hasn't accomplished anything.' Unfortunately, they've been succeeding too well." - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
The fear and anger that is fuelling the constant opposition without merit, sense or rationality is not constructive, does not benefit the public, is irresponsible and childish. On the other hand, the Democrats need to take their Barbie dresses off, defend their position, educate the public on the merits of their policies, and actually stop cowering to people like Hannity and Bleck who are as much the Fourth Estate as Entertainment Tonight.
The United States is a country where someone like Bush gets elected twice, where Edward Kennedy is replaced by a Republican and where Sarah Palin is considered a viable candidate. Ignorance is not an excuse for mediocrity and surely the so-called greatest nation on earth can do better.
"Their (Republicans') view is if they can defeat Obama in every way imaginable, they'll come up in the midterm election and say, 'Hey, he hasn't accomplished anything.' Unfortunately, they've been succeeding too well." - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Majority - we all agree, therefore, it is right.
What does it really mean when a news clip starts with the sentence, "a majority of the public..."? We live in a democracy where the rule of the majority is not only inevitable but a tool through which governments are elected and policies are justified. So intrinsic the concept of majority is in our society, that it is difficult to even talk about democracy without mentioning the word 'majority' somewhere in the sentence. A majority of New Zealanders think mobile phones should be banned in cars, a majority of the public think health care is a right not privilege, a majority of the people think David Bain is guilty. If we were subscribing to the Greek view of direct democracy, would we be adopting these ideologies because the majority thought so? If that were the case, then billions of dollars would not be spent to conduct studies about effects of policies all over the world. We would not be weighing up consequences and we would not be comparing pros and cons. We would simply leave it up to the majority to decide. And we would have policies like that in Saudi Arabia where the majority do not believe that women should have a right to vote or drive or receive higher education or have a profession of choice. We would not have an adversarial justice system where the onus is on the state to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And perhaps torture would be justified in the interest of national security.
There is no doubt that in the interest of effective governance, the use of majority consensus not only simplifies many processes, it almost most certainly is the only way things can get done as well as elect presidents like Bush. But does the number of people that watch a movie dictate a "good quality movie"? A book? A piece of art? As a society it is perfectly within our rights to throw our arms up in the air and say that it is impossible to take every situation and weigh up the merits of every different options based on every different circumstances. But unless we really do that, no outcome can be claimed to be the "right" outcome. It is just the preferred outcome. Humans made it possible to go to the moon, to take salmon gene that allows it to survive in cold waters and put it in a tomato so we can have it in the winter, to make skyscrapers that withstand earthquakes. Surely we should not have to leave it up to the majority to decided what is suitable for us to have a better society because the alternatives are too complicated. And if we had left it up to the majority, New Zealand would not have been the first country in the world to give women the right to vote, blacks would not have the right to vote in the 50s, and homosexuals in this country would be criminalised as late as the 80s.
In the end, one only invokes the 'majority' to justify policies that do not have merit on their own, especially when that is the only justification. No one would justify women's suffrage by saying that a majority of the public would like to retain a women's right to vote, no one would justify criminal liability by saying a majority of the public believe that murderers should be punished, and no one would to justify the condemnation of genocide by saying that majority of the world's population thinks genocide is an abominable act. The majority number gives us an indication of the individual’s choice and preference, which is of course important in a democracy, but it does not tell us what is fair, just or right. So now, in the year 2009, when more people than ever are educated, when we have access to more information than ever, when we were more aware of long term consequences of our actions, when we should be doing everything to promote a more peaceful and civilised society, a majority of the New Zealand's public want the right to smack their children in order to discipline them and the government elected by the majority would like to usurp select committee processes, ignore Treaty implications and remove Maori seats in the Auckland Supercity Council.
Is this what most people want?
Yes.
Is it right?
Surely not.
There is no doubt that in the interest of effective governance, the use of majority consensus not only simplifies many processes, it almost most certainly is the only way things can get done as well as elect presidents like Bush. But does the number of people that watch a movie dictate a "good quality movie"? A book? A piece of art? As a society it is perfectly within our rights to throw our arms up in the air and say that it is impossible to take every situation and weigh up the merits of every different options based on every different circumstances. But unless we really do that, no outcome can be claimed to be the "right" outcome. It is just the preferred outcome. Humans made it possible to go to the moon, to take salmon gene that allows it to survive in cold waters and put it in a tomato so we can have it in the winter, to make skyscrapers that withstand earthquakes. Surely we should not have to leave it up to the majority to decided what is suitable for us to have a better society because the alternatives are too complicated. And if we had left it up to the majority, New Zealand would not have been the first country in the world to give women the right to vote, blacks would not have the right to vote in the 50s, and homosexuals in this country would be criminalised as late as the 80s.
In the end, one only invokes the 'majority' to justify policies that do not have merit on their own, especially when that is the only justification. No one would justify women's suffrage by saying that a majority of the public would like to retain a women's right to vote, no one would justify criminal liability by saying a majority of the public believe that murderers should be punished, and no one would to justify the condemnation of genocide by saying that majority of the world's population thinks genocide is an abominable act. The majority number gives us an indication of the individual’s choice and preference, which is of course important in a democracy, but it does not tell us what is fair, just or right. So now, in the year 2009, when more people than ever are educated, when we have access to more information than ever, when we were more aware of long term consequences of our actions, when we should be doing everything to promote a more peaceful and civilised society, a majority of the New Zealand's public want the right to smack their children in order to discipline them and the government elected by the majority would like to usurp select committee processes, ignore Treaty implications and remove Maori seats in the Auckland Supercity Council.
Is this what most people want?
Yes.
Is it right?
Surely not.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Who's going to take care of the children?
Last week on 60 Minutes there was a story of a group of Australian women are who are going back to being the 50s style stay at home housewife after having a stint at being a career woman. These women are in their late 20s to early 30s that had a taste of the corporate world and then decided that being a fulltime mother and wife was preferable. As a woman in her 20s working towards a potential career in the public sphere, I was completely appalled when I initially watched the segment. Our mother’s generation did not fight for women’s rights for a small group of women to undermine all working women and their ambitions. Women have and continue to work very hard for legitimacy in the working world and to me their stance on what women (as a general entity) should do is appalling. These women claimed that it is impossible to juggle children and the corporate world and that the feminists of the 60s and 70s duped us into thinking that we could both. Their assessment of the situation was that women who are mothers would be better off staying home for the children and husband, ensuring a stable family life for all.
On principle, I believe that if a woman chooses to stay at home, it is her prerogative and she should be commended (as well as fathers who chose to stay home and raise children). I see such a decision as a sacrifice to be willing to take on a task that is purported to be equivalent to having two full time jobs in terms of stress and ethic. But I categorically refuse accept that it is the woman’s role to be home and raising children or that it is even necessary. Women have made a lot of changes in their lifestyle in the last few centuries while men have generally continued to what they’ve been doing for centuries. To this day no one expects a man to have children by 35, no one expects a man to stay at home when he does have children and no on expects the man “to have it all together” at all times. So where have we gone wrong?
Women’s liberation have a come a long way to ensure that we do as well as men in academia and that we can go out and have enjoyable sex without regrets. But at the end of the day after all of that, women are still the only ones that can bear and have children and so we continue to impose the unspoken burden on women to marry and have children. Baby formula changed that burden with regards to breast feeding so there is no doubt in my mind that natural bearing and birthing of the children will one day become a thing of the past. I trust that science and technology will give us at least that much. But who’s going to take care of those children?
Women have been behaving like men to get ahead for decades but men have not done the same. Most women would cringe if men behaved like women so what is the solution to this problem? It seems like society forgot to address all the issues before giving the green light to women to take charge of the workplace and their sexual lives. Studies have shown that children fare better when they are raised by their family rather than day care. So I ask again, who’s going to take care of the children? Both sexes have been given the ability to serve society in many ways and I firmly believe that it is neither the man’s nor the woman’s job to have to raise children. Where men are physically stronger, women have been given better negotiation and empathy skills. Without the input and perspective of both men and women, a society cannot be expected to develop in a healthy and inclusive manner. So it is imperative that we have a significant amount of women in the private and public workforce.
The clear cut answer to this problem has always been relationships. Relationships are the building block of society and it doesn’t take a woman to raise a child but a village. What we lack in society is a balance between our individual pursuits and our responsibility to our society. We no longer have healthy relationships with our parents, our aunts and uncles, our cousins. We try to move as far away from our family and “do our own thing”. We no longer maintain healthy friendships with people we can trust and count on. We no longer know the first names of our friendly neighbour. The working women of this generation no longer stay in touch with the one friend that does decide to stay at home and raise the children. The problem is that we ARE trying to do it alone when we should be involving everyone. I am not suggesting that we revert back to some form of communitarian cult-like culture. What I am suggesting is that while our individual pursuits are necessary, those pursuits have harmful affects when we decide to start a family which by nature is inherently contrary to the “individual pursuit”.
On principle, I believe that if a woman chooses to stay at home, it is her prerogative and she should be commended (as well as fathers who chose to stay home and raise children). I see such a decision as a sacrifice to be willing to take on a task that is purported to be equivalent to having two full time jobs in terms of stress and ethic. But I categorically refuse accept that it is the woman’s role to be home and raising children or that it is even necessary. Women have made a lot of changes in their lifestyle in the last few centuries while men have generally continued to what they’ve been doing for centuries. To this day no one expects a man to have children by 35, no one expects a man to stay at home when he does have children and no on expects the man “to have it all together” at all times. So where have we gone wrong?
Women’s liberation have a come a long way to ensure that we do as well as men in academia and that we can go out and have enjoyable sex without regrets. But at the end of the day after all of that, women are still the only ones that can bear and have children and so we continue to impose the unspoken burden on women to marry and have children. Baby formula changed that burden with regards to breast feeding so there is no doubt in my mind that natural bearing and birthing of the children will one day become a thing of the past. I trust that science and technology will give us at least that much. But who’s going to take care of those children?
Women have been behaving like men to get ahead for decades but men have not done the same. Most women would cringe if men behaved like women so what is the solution to this problem? It seems like society forgot to address all the issues before giving the green light to women to take charge of the workplace and their sexual lives. Studies have shown that children fare better when they are raised by their family rather than day care. So I ask again, who’s going to take care of the children? Both sexes have been given the ability to serve society in many ways and I firmly believe that it is neither the man’s nor the woman’s job to have to raise children. Where men are physically stronger, women have been given better negotiation and empathy skills. Without the input and perspective of both men and women, a society cannot be expected to develop in a healthy and inclusive manner. So it is imperative that we have a significant amount of women in the private and public workforce.
The clear cut answer to this problem has always been relationships. Relationships are the building block of society and it doesn’t take a woman to raise a child but a village. What we lack in society is a balance between our individual pursuits and our responsibility to our society. We no longer have healthy relationships with our parents, our aunts and uncles, our cousins. We try to move as far away from our family and “do our own thing”. We no longer maintain healthy friendships with people we can trust and count on. We no longer know the first names of our friendly neighbour. The working women of this generation no longer stay in touch with the one friend that does decide to stay at home and raise the children. The problem is that we ARE trying to do it alone when we should be involving everyone. I am not suggesting that we revert back to some form of communitarian cult-like culture. What I am suggesting is that while our individual pursuits are necessary, those pursuits have harmful affects when we decide to start a family which by nature is inherently contrary to the “individual pursuit”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)