Public Address - Hard News (Home)

Rock Against Blowhards | Sep 10, 2004 11:48

Much as everyone enjoys beating up on TVNZ, it's only fair to extend the warmest praise for the current Saturday night 'NZ Festival' season on TV One. Sheilas, which revisited a group of local proto-feminists from the late 1960s and early 70s, and found them largely thoughtful and in good heart.

I know Sheilas wasn't produced expressly as a television programme, but it's enormously encouraging to see this sort of thing screening at a reasonable hour, even on a Saturday. It's also good to see the national broadcaster's considerable archive being used for something more than lightweight the-way-we-were tosh. The torturously affected BBC accents that everyone felt bound to adopt when they got anywhere near a camera sound so funny now.

In a year dominated by reactionary blowhards (and their blowhard friends in the press and in Parliament) it was nice to be reminded why we undertook the social changes we did. I had never realised that within my lifetime it was illegal for women in New Zealand to work after 11pm, or that Marcia Russell was the first woman ever permitted to work in the herald's newsroom.

That local feminism at one point was at one point in danger of disappearing up its own front bum is evident, but New Zealand society today would be unthinkable without its succession of small, significant victories. Even the lesbians have lightened up. A lot!

Tomorrow night's offering is the Janet Frame documentary Westling with the Angel, then next week it's Colin McCahon: I AM (produced by Robin Scholes, DOP Leon Narbey). Saturday the 25th is Rocket Man: the Story of William H. Pickering, with music by - get this! - Epsilon Blue. This is a stellar lineup of (ahem) charter television and pats on the back are due to all concerned.

Speaking of the golden weather years, we would do well to reflect on what was allowed to happen around the Ivon Watkins-Dow chemical plant in New Plymouth from the 1960s onwards. Finally - why did it take so long? - the blood of long-term residents has been tested and found to contain unacceptable levels of dioxin as a result of discharges from the plant. In truth, the worst of the damage has already been done, but we should feel glad to live in era when the issue has finally been brought to light. I hope the government is not now needlessly defensive about it. And I hope that a few other reactionary blowhards pause to recall why we have a Resource Management Act.

Emails continue to trickle in on either side of the Beslan issue. Ashley Paris replied to make clear she wasn't accusing me of excusing the killings: "What I object to," she said. "Is the blancmange-like state of self-loathing passivity the western Left maintains whenever the muslim world strikes at the infidel. Their moral inertia will generate just as much violence as anything Bush or Rumsfeld do."

I understand that. But I'm wary of talk about the "Muslim world" - that's a third of the world's people you're calling to account there. The Herald's print edition ran this thoughtful essay by Yasmin Alibahi-Brown, which lamented the unfairness of tarring all Muslims (many of whom are victims far more than we are in our comfortable country) with terrorism, but concluded with the hope for a "long overdue self-examination by some of the great and the good in the Muslim world."

One the other hand, on my Wire show recently I interviewed Dr Zakir Naik, an Indian Muslim who lectures internationally on the faith. He had been banned from using the Lynfield College hall after the school took fright at a flyer advertising his lectures. It seemed like an interesting free-speech angle, but by the time I was done with Dr Naik I felt that school was well rid of him.

Naik insisted he was aware of no evidence to convince him that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 - or, indeed, for anything. (I though for one terrible moment he was going to blame the Jews. He didn't, although he gave the impression that given the chance he could be right up there with David Irving.) I (and the listeners) wound up somewhat horrified.

And yet we have our own moral thugs. George Fleet got back to re-emphasise his view that genocide in Chechnya was unfortunate but necessary, just like World War 2. Except, George, the jihadists didn't show up until Russia had undertaken its second war in a decade in Chechnya. Actually, I've done some more reading around, and the 50,000 figure I quoted this week seems a very low estimate. The Guardian ran this column by Ahmed Zakaev, the deputy prime minister in Chechnya's 1997 government, who was granted asylum by Britain last year:

Ten years ago Chechnya had a population of 2 million. Today it is 800,000, and Vladimir Putin has an army of what we estimate to be up to 300,000 Russian soldiers in Chechnya inflicting a regime of terror. Many Chechens are refugees and many others have simply disappeared, often in the night. At least 200,000 Chechen civilians have been killed by Russian soldiers, including 35,000 children. Another 40,000 children have been seriously injured, 32,000 have lost at least one parent and 6,500 have been orphaned. These are figures supported by reports of human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, and we believe they are conservative. This is how Putin's soldiers treat Chechen civilians.

It's worth reading the entire column. And even allowing for Zakaev's inevitable bias, I can't consider that without thinking, well, where we we then?

Anyway, it has been a week of challenging events, none of which I will go into here. But it's ending, and tonight is the B-Net New Zealand Music Awards, traditionally one of the largest events on the social calendar in my circles. I don't know about you, but I will certainly be having it. Large, that is …

PS: Sean from the Tom Bosley Experience turned up at the front door to give me a copy of their new CD. It's wiggy, electronic and twisted. I like that.

Digg this Scoopit!

Unenlightened self-interest | Sep 09, 2004 10:59

At election time in a modern economy such as ours, the USA's multi-trillion dollar projected fiscal deficits would be a massive, screaming, huge issue. Although the incumbent might seek to play down such a fiscal crisis, you'd expect someone to enter the game with a painful-but-necessary solution.

No such luck. Kerry is trying to make Bush's deficits an issue, but has no serious plan to haul them back. Bush is not just ignoring the problem, but campaigning on policies that would more than double the 10-year deficit. This Los Angeles Times story lays out the grim reality:

Independent budget experts say the size of this year's shortfall is less important than the long-term budgetary outlook. Although both presidential candidates state their intent to reduce the deficit as a percentage of the economy, neither one is offering a plan for putting the federal budget back in the black.

The CBO said it did not attempt to estimate the budgetary effect of Kerry's campaign proposals. The Democratic nominee wants to extend most of Bush's tax cuts for the middle class but rescind those for wealthier taxpayers. Yet several independent economists have said that any savings that would accrue would probably be offset by Kerry's proposals to increase spending on healthcare and education.

Robert Greenstein, director of the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, said it appeared that the 10-year cost of Bush's economic platform was slightly greater than the cost of Kerry's campaign promises. "But under both sets of proposals, the nation would face significant problems over the next 10 years and beyond," he said.

Although faster-than-expected economic expansion might trim the long-term deficit, CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said it would be next to impossible for the nation to grow its way out of deficit spending.

Even if Bush's tax cuts were allowed to expire and nothing was done about the alternative minimum tax, the looming retirement of the baby boom generation would cause deficits to swell as Social Security and Medicare trust funds were gradually depleted, he said.

That last paragraph is particularly apposite. Although the US is hardly alone in having a looming retirement crisis, it is notable for the way that crisis is virtually ignored at the political level. We might not have a solution in this country, but we've tried. We've looked at hard options. We even have, now, a degree of cross-party support for the savings plan embodied in the "Cullen fund". On the other hand, check out Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post:

These are hard issues. But they are harder today because we didn't face them yesterday, and they will be harder tomorrow because we're not facing them today. Our lack of candor makes them worse. Prodded by Bush, Congress last year extended Medicare coverage to drugs. This significantly increased Medicare's long-term costs. Hardly anyone asked the basic question: Why should younger people, who need to pay for diapers and mortgages, be forced to pay for older people's drugs? People at different life stages have different costs. There was a case for coverage of catastrophic drug costs, though not ordinary costs.

Bush and Kerry practice and perpetuate this national denial. The longer benefit cuts are postponed, the more likely it is that Congress will be forced to make abrupt and unfair cuts for current recipients even while raising taxes. Bush deserves to lose the election based on his cynical Medicare drug plan, designed to attract elderly voters. But Kerry does not deserve to win, based on his equally cynical pandering to the same voters.

How does this happen? Thanks to Christiaan Briggs for alerting me to this story in the New Yorker, which looks at recent research into how and why Americans vote the way they do. It's worth reading in its entirety, but here are some excerpts:

But, after analyzing the results of surveys conducted over time, in which people tended to give different and randomly inconsistent answers to the same questions, Converse concluded that "very substantial portions of the public" hold opinions that are essentially meaningless—off-the-top-of-the-head responses to questions they have never thought about, derived from no underlying set of principles. These people might as well base their political choices on the weather. And, in fact, many of them do …

Seventy per cent of Americans cannot name their senators or their congressman. Forty-nine per cent believe that the President has the power to suspend the Constitution. Only about thirty per cent name an issue when they explain why they voted the way they did, and only a fifth hold consistent opinions on issues over time. Rephrasing poll questions reveals that many people don't understand the issues that they have just offered an opinion on. According to polls conducted in 1987 and 1989, for example, between twenty and twenty-five per cent of the public thinks that too little is being spent on welfare, and between sixty-three and sixty-five per cent feels that too little is being spent on assistance to the poor.

And voters apparently do punish politicians for acts of God. In a paper written in 2004, the Princeton political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels estimate that "2.8 million people voted against Al Gore in 2000 because their states were too dry or too wet" as a consequence of that year's weather patterns. Achen and Bartels think that these voters cost Gore seven states, any one of which would have given him the election …

When people are asked whether they favor Bush's policy of repealing the estate tax, two-thirds say yes - even though the estate tax affects only the wealthiest one or two per cent of the population. Ninety-eight per cent of Americans do not leave estates large enough for the tax to kick in. But people have some notion - Bartels refers to it as "unenlightened self-interest" - that they will be better off if the tax is repealed.

What is most remarkable about this opinion is that it is unconstrained by other beliefs. Repeal is supported by sixty-six per cent of people who believe that the income gap between the richest and the poorest Americans has increased in recent decades, and that this is a bad thing. And it's supported by sixty-eight per cent of people who say that the rich pay too little in taxes. Most Americans simply do not make a connection between tax policy and the over-all economic condition of the country. Whatever heuristic they are using, it is definitely not doing the math for them. This helps make sense of the fact that the world's greatest democracy has an electorate that continually "chooses" to transfer more and more wealth to a smaller and smaller fraction of itself.

It's ironic that the nation which generates such vitality in business, technology and culture is stuck with an electoral system and political environment which is so badly broken. The elites argue the toss, half of eligible voters don't bother, and some of those who do seem to make their choices on grounds that border on the infantile. I just wish the rest of us didn't have to live with it.

We can always pretend. Thanks very much to Martin Hermans for directing me to betavote.com, which is based on the premise: "What if the whole world could vote in the U.S. presidential election?". Not unexpectedly, Kerry would romp home. Wholly unscientific, of course, but good fun. By all means, cast your ballot and we'll see if New Zealand can beat Finland for "turnout".

Back on the local front, David Farrar is accusing the Herald of bias for running the rule over John Banks' claimed list of "achievements". Given that Banks is not just loudly running on his record, but claiming that his council has "achieved more than any council in living memory", this would seem to be a matter of the newspaper simply doing its job. I presume David would be up in arms if Helen Clark claimed credit for a list of National government initiatives (including those her party had actively opposed) and had her claims faithfully relayed in the Herald. I don't see why this is any different.

And David's expectation of a matching "expose of who actually does what with Hubbard Foods" is just silly. No one's asking Banks to open the books of his private businesses. The issue is what he's done in the job for which he is seeking re-election.

Meanwhile, Dick Hubbard finally has a campaign website, and written policies - all two of them - with more policy to come next Tuesday. As I expected he would, he's given himself a sensible out on the Eastern Corridor: it has to meet "the appropriate cost benefit analysis - which has yet to be seen." A key point of distinction with the incumbent is that Hubbard appears to know what an apostrophe is.

Quite a few people have emailed me about broadcaster Tim O'Brien's online campaign for the Wellington mayoralty. It's great: video and audio statements from the candidate, a campaign diary, a published campaign itinerary, policy points, links, and even an explanation of the new STV voting system (I really wish we had that in Auckland). But dammit, I'd vote for him on the strength of Fat Freddy's Drop playing at his launch on Sunday …

And, finally, Sideswipe is making merry this morning with the story of a Hell Pizza flyer offering promotional discounts that were news to actual Hell Pizza outlets. But perhaps it would be wise not to point the finger too readily. Herald-subscribing reader Catherine says she got a promotional mail-out offering "Four Easy Options to try the new Herald on Sunday for free (oh, and win $10K of an Ultimate Outdoor Room). So I go online to do my thing and can't find anything that even mentions the fine new organ, let alone how to upgrade subscriptions. So I write them a note and I get this note back …"

Dear Catherine

Thank you for your email.

The promotion does not say anywhere you can upgrade your subscription to the Herald on Sunday online.

As mentioned in the promotion you need to phone 0800 100 888 to subscribe to the Herald on Sunday.

Kind regards …

"Thing is," says Catherine, "The 0800 number they mention isn't even the same one as that on the letter (cos, being petty, I had to rummage through my garbage to find it). Meantime. I've snail mailed using option 1. D'ya reckon the marketing people and all the folks who've spent $$$ developing this product would weep if they knew the response?"

Digg this Scoopit!

Innocents II | Sep 08, 2004 09:25

It would seem some other blog has linked to Monday's post, because yesterday afternoon I got a sudden rush of emails whose collective message might be paraphrased as "YOU ARE A FRIEND OF THE CHILD-MURDERING TERRORISTS! AN APOLOGIST FOR AL-QAEDA! YOU HATE AMERICA! YOU DISGUST ME! WHAT ABOUT THE ARAB HOSTAGE-TAKERS!?"

I don't excuse the hostage-takers in Beslan. How the hell could anyone excuse that? I object to the characterisation of them as "rebels" and refuse to call them that (actually, I realised I had used the word further down the original post and took it out later on). Indeed, they may have fatally damaged the kind of Chechnyan separatist cause to which it might be possible to say that "rebels" would rally.

My offence, of course, was to note a context for the atrocity in Beslan: that of the genocide in Chechnya. I didn't think that was particularly outrageous - the Guardian editorial said much the same thing, if in much better prose:

Yesterday, Vladimir Putin, the Russian President, said that he considered the event a declaration of 'full-scale war' against his nation. But depraved terrorism of this type does not come unannounced. Russian forces fighting the two wars in Chechnya have distinguished themselves with their own brand of brutality - killing, torturing, maiming and kidnapping with equal abandon and disregard for the rule of law.

Putin's policy of a draconian crackdown and his failure to even countenance a limited degree of self-determination in some parts of the Caucasus has been a policy doomed to fail. He has become a recruiting sergeant for terrorists and an excuse for those with the darkest of motives to hitch a ride on the feelings of powerlessness among the people of the region.

For most of my correspondents, all that "killing, torturing, maiming and kidnapping" appears not to have existed because they didn't see it live on television. But one, George Fleet, actively approved of it:

You ask how I feel about 50,000 Chechen dead? Exactly the way I felt about Japanese and German civilian casualties of WW2 - a sad but unavoidable consequence of standing up to tyranny.

Try and think before you say things like that, George. And then don't say them.

Michael Cambridge noted darkly that "[you] couldn't even bring yourself to mention the arabs amongst the hostage-takers. Hardly surprising, you only referred to the fact they were Muslim obliquely." Well, yes, because it's still not clear there were any Arabs. The Russian government put forward the claim, but it has been contradicted by hostages. And one of the reasons for the public anger at the government within Russia (which has accompanied and in some cases rivalled anger about the atrocity itself) is that it has already admitted to lying about the events.

It may be difficult to discover exactly what happened now that Putin has ruled out any inquiry, but the Seattle Times has a roundup of present information on the hostage-takers, which leads with the claim that some of the group objected to the taking of children and were killed by their commanders.

Former Daily Telegraph editor Max Hastings has an insightful column on the nature and evolution of terrorism in the wake of Beslan. He concludes thus:

Once the world's surge of compassion for the victims has faded a little, the challenge for any responsible government is to assess terrorism, whether that of Chechnya or Palestine or al-Qaida, without sentiment. The only questions that should matter are whether the grievances represented by a given movement receive a political as well as a military response (viz the Good Friday agreement), or whether governments persist with exclusively military policies (viz Sharon, some people in Washington whose names momentarily escape me, and Putin). The fact that what has happened in Ossetia this weekend is unspeakable does not make Putin any more likely to win his Chechen war.

A couple of other correspondents seemed to object to my objection to Donald Rumsfeld promising a "strengthening [of] political and economic relationships" with Uzbekistan's psychotic dictator while his own State Department was preparing to cut him off. Perhaps it's time we had another look at the ol' Memory Hole favourite Senior US Officials Cozy up to Dictator Who Boils People Alive.

Human Rights Watch's 2004 report on Uzbekistan, Creating Enemies of the State: Religious Persecution in Uzbekistan, is here. It details an extreme and brutal campaign of religious persecution, encompassing torture, rape and murder. The country's significant Islamic movements might not be philosophically admirable by our lights, but they do appear to be non-violent. At any rate, Karimov also persecutes ordinary believers (actually, the laws with which he nationalised religion allow him to do the same to, say, Christian missionaries, or even anyone who worships in a non-state sanctioned church).

Is it really not possible to consider that perhaps the unwelcome growth of Wahhabism there (and in Chechnya, for that matter) is a consequence of such brutality, rather than a motive for it?

Anyway, many thanks to John Cathcart for directing me to this very arch column written (before the hostage-taking) under a pseudonym by a Moscow journalist, who cocks an eye at the Chechen elections and has fun drawing comparisons between Chechnya and Iraq. No one does black humour like the Slavs ...

Barrister Anthony Trenwith was in touch regarding yesterday's comments on the prison overflow, which, he says "is going to lead to more litigation like that over the Behaviour Modification Regime treatment at Paremoremo prison. Already applications for injunctions are being prepared to stop corrections continuing to hold prisoners in the Manukau District Court cells." He expands on the theme in his own blog.

August saw by far the highest monthly injury toll yet for US forces in Iraq. The injuries also seem to be getting worse.

The George W. Bush cocaine story is back - although, amusingly, it's from the safe distance of London, where the Daily Mirror is previewing Kitty Kelly's new book, The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty, which quotes his former sister-in-law Sharon Bush claiming "Bush did coke at Camp David when his father was President, and not just once either." The Mirror story says he is also alleged in the book to have done more than his share of hoovering in the course of his soft National Guard posting.

At the same time, Daily Kos notes an unsourced Indymedia post ("how's that for unsubstantiated?") claiming that Kelly's book contains far more lurid allegations than even those above. Hmm …

Meanwhile, FactCheck.org has a comprehensive summary of the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry, with particular regard to the shifting stories of his accusers. Media Matters notes that Swift Veterans for Truth altered its website account of one incident after realising that it conflicted with the account of its star witness. It's unnerving that an election could turn on this sort of sleaze.

And, finally, all manner of dramas over at IdolBlog. I trust that Paul Ellis has already offered the young lady an apology …

Digg this Scoopit!