trixtah: (Default)
There is a meme going around on Facebook where people are prompted to change their default icon to a childhood cartoon character if they "care about violence against children/child abuse".

I'm all for making issues visible. Despite the naysayers like Gladwell, I do truly believe that social media allows word to get out there that might not necessarily have done. Sure, it's about the "cause du jour", what's trendy at the moment, what people notice. But that's no worse than what the newspapers pick and choose to publicise. And frankly, we do tend to care about what's nearer to us, community-wise (whether these are geographic or social communities) - it's a more developed kind of altruism that makes us consider those remote to us.

Having said all that, this FB meme irritates me immensely. The reason I feel it trivialises the issue is that NOT ONE of the solicitations I've seen provides any real information on child abuse - whether about the issue itself, or ways and means of addressing it. One of the things I enjoy about more-developed online communities, such as DW and even Reddit and so on, is that people use links. They cite things, they provide references, they suggest where to go next to help create meaningful change.

Changing a frigging icon does not. FB is powerful because it connects up people who would not have been well-connected before. People can publish information that they would not have broadcast previously. So I am just WAITING for more sophistication to develop around how to use this powerful resource.

In the meantime, if we do see these contextless posts, and it is an issue you care about, I suggest putting real information out there. Obviously, I couldn't feel more strongly about fucking child abuse - which is why my previous mild irritation about previous memes I have seen going around, complete with stupid semi-literate glurge and no pointers to constructive information, has finally burst its banks. If people want to change icons and post pictures, fine, whatever, if there is something REAL attached to it. Without context, it is trivial - a 30-second feel-good factor isn't enough..

And in the meantime, some secular charities are listed below that address child abuse. If you feel sufficiently well-financed and motivated, I'm sure they'll appreciate funds. And hey, FB has achieved something - it's prompted me to put this information out there (and bump up one of my own contributions). - NZ - Australia - UK - US - Canada

trixtah: (Default)
Stupid Socialist Alliance assertion du jour (at least according to a banner I saw of theirs today): apparently capitalism is responsible for all the nasty ills of the world, such as wars, racism, pollution and something else I've forgotten now. Now, I'm not pretending that capitalism is not a very effective way of delivering various kinds of oppression, including the economic kind, but wow, I totally had no idea of the utopia embodied in absolute monarchy, feudalism, dictatorships (of the right and left kind) or even the good old days of tribes and their chieftains fighting over neighbouring hills.

There's nothing wrong with pointing plenty of fingers at capitalism, but correlation does not equal causation.

In other news, the new Connie Willis book, Blackout, has arrived in Oz, and what a disappointment. This review on Amazon summarises exactly how irritating it is. Such a shame. Anyway, I'm not bothering to go back for Part 2 - the whole "miscommunication" trope was wearing on me a bit in To Say Nothing of the Dog, but this book tipped it way over. It's also EXTREMELY irksome that there is no mention of the fact that the book - nearly 500 pages - is part one of two, until you get to the end and find a very subtle (not) advertising blurb to buy the next. No thanks.

And cocktail invention of the month:

In a cocktail shaker lid, lightly crush two cloves. At 1-2 Tbl of overproof rum and heat over a tealight until bubbles start to form. Flame the rum, allow to burn for a few seconds and extinguish by covering the lid (with the bottom of the shaker, a glass, whatever). Strain the rum over ice in a short glass. Pour over a shot of light rum (decent quality, plz), 1/2 a shot Grand Marnier and a shot of orange juice. Top up with pineappe juice and stir. To be classy, make a twist of orange peel, flame it and use it to garnish the drink.

Nom nom!

trixtah: (Default)
So, according to this moron, those effete Dutch allowed the Srebrenica massacre to happen in 1995 because they "socialised" their military after the cold war - OMG, Dutch soldiers have a union - and recruited those limp-wristed queers:

"They declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialise their military – that includes the unionisation of their militaries, it includes open homosexuality. That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war," he said.
Frankly, the Dutch armed forces have never been renowned for their extreme military skill. And it's also true that many of the world's armed forces, especially for countries who are not generally in the business of rattling their sabres as a means of diplomacy, or acting as bully-boys, have wound down their armed forces significantly.

Madeline Bunting wrote an article in the Guardian in 2002 that laid out exactly what the problem was. As well as the ill-equipped and ill-trained armed forces, the UN forces were effectively toothless. It was assumed their mere presence would stop anything erupting; their rules of engagement were not clear about what to do in the situation that arose. And funnily enough, some countries do actually care about the legalities before engaging in warfare. Also, those UN rules of engagement in a particular situation are often defined and curtailed by the more military-minded nations that control the UN Security Council.

I deplore the fact that there are any standing armies left in the world, but the reality is that some groups/nations/whatever still believe the best way to achieve their aims is through violence. And hell, it often is effective, for generations. For smaller countries, while maintaining a huge standing army is not going to be feasible - unless you're Israel, and your country is effectively one big army -  allowing the forces that remain to be under-trained and under-equipped seems dangerous in the extreme.

I've always felt that NZ, for example, should get rid of a chunk of its army, and put more of a focus on search-and-rescue forces (with a separate command structure). For disasters, that's what you want, and they could also do logistics operations to supplement the Army forces in the event of a big engagement. Then re-org the Army to get rid of the more quaint regiments like the "mounted rifles" (they aren't actually riding horses any more), and make the whole lot more mixed British Marine-style units, which include artillery and armoured vehicles companies within a platoon. A couple of super-duper commando units (the SAS is well-regarded), and the bomb squad. Then there are the Territorial (reserve) units, organised along the same lines. Same with SAR forces.

However, if you're going to do that, they should be equipped with the latest and greatest, and be trained within an inch of their lives. Allowing your under-resourced forces to be put in to the position that the Dutch were in in Srebrenica would be horrible in the extreme (both for your soldiers and the people they are supposed to be protecting). And if it isn't frigging obvious, none of that has anything to do with queers in the military or allowing your soldiers basic civil rights, like being able to join unions.
trixtah: (Default)
This cracked my shit up on the weekend; it's on the wall of the Lyneham post office-cum-laundrette. It was particularly apposite given the fact I'd seen it (the uncommented emblem only) tattoo'd on the back of a young woman's neck, in size LARGE, the day before.

trixtah: (Default)
90% of the voters in a referendum think it's just fine to thump children. (And I'm linking to the Beeb story, since it's actually neutral and has the right facts)


The context is that legislation was passed a couple of years ago removing the "parental defence" for assaulting (sorry, "smacking") your children. The context to that legislation was that NZ has one of the highest child assault rates in the world, with notable examples of children being killed by their parents (oh, of course that's bad, and there's no defence, obviously) down to kids being publicly assaulted with riding crops, hit in the face with closed fists, and the like. Under the previous law, the latter things were defensible! Regarding the "you shouldn't be locked up for smack on the wrist" arguments, the current legislation states that the Police have the discretion to not press charges if there is no merit in bringing the case to court.

Of course, the religious nutcases and the right-wing arseholes who think they should have the god-given right to do what they like to their children got all up in arms, as did a significant chunk of the "it never hurt me" contingent. Of course, you talk to these "never hurt me" kind, and there's always a story about when dad went a bit far with the belt, or mum knocked you flying out the door with a backhander. And, hur-hur, they "acted up" just as badly when their bum stopped hurting so much. Why do certain people think it's "funny" to tell stories about that kind of thing? It horrifies me every time I encounter it.

My mother tells a "funny story" about when we moved house once, and when she was packing up, she found no less than four wooden spoons hidden around the place. Apparently I must have hidden them; no prizes for guessing what her favourite "corrective implement" was. She and other family members thought the story was funny, at least. For some reason, I don't.

Anyway, a beautifully-worded referendum went out to the populace asking: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" And that's what the 90% voted "No" to.

Notice they didn't say "Should hitting your child be permitted under the law in New Zealand?" Notice they didn't define a "smack". Does it count if it's a "smack" with a belt? To the face? With the back of the hand? And what is "good parental correction"?

Given the backwards nature of the wording, there was quite a bit of confusion initially about if you're against hitting children, do you vote "No"? But one thing about all the debate around this debacle was that people quickly got the point of what "Yes" and "No" were supposed to mean in the context of the stupid question.

Anyways, it's a non-binding referendum, so what the govt might do about the legislation is fairly moot at present. But it disgusts the hell out of me.

ETA: The Christian nutjobs who lobbied for this referendum, and the language it uses, got funding from the US Christian nutjob organisation, Focus on the Family. What a surprise. And how amazing that certain groups mightily resent interference in their own country's borders, but have no compunction in exerting their religious and political colonialism overseas. Fuckers, again.

trixtah: (Default)
Apropos of an article in the SMH today on Julia Gillard, the deputy PM:

But, I hear you ask, there is no mention anywhere in this column of her gender. Isn't that an issue? The good news is that the answer is no, it's not. Australian politics has matured to the point where a politician's gender is incidental. Performance, not sex, is the essential qualification.

Thank you, Mr Peter Hartcher, for assuring us that the inequity of women's representation in politics (67 out of 226 in the Australian Parliament), is nothing to do with their gender. That's wonderful, and I'm glad it's all just warm fuzzies all round.

Although at least he's saying nice things about Ms Gillard. She is pretty groovy.

(Women are slowly catching up in the public service too, in a similar proportion to parliamentary representation - 35% of the Senior Executive Service in 2007, although only three Commonwealth department heads I can track down. But forget about business: 12% in exec roles in the top 200 ASX companies)

trixtah: (Default)
PETA had plans to do some promotional spots with Michael Vick against dogfighting. He's not even out of prison yet, but he feels badly because "it ruined his career". Yes, great sentiments of remorse there.

Oh, but it turns out PETA aren't going ahead now, because they think he's probably psychopathic (based on no real evidence other than his revolting history), and probably wouldn't be such a great role model.

Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK were PETA thinking in the first place? And what a fucking weaselish way of backing out of it. I really wonder how much their publicity-chasing tactics truly help achieve the goals they profess to have.

trixtah: (Default)
Meh, I've done very little of the work I intended to this weekend. I did some reading, set up a couple of wikis, and helped one of my fellow students with a piece of software. I have to write an essay outline, which is assessable, and I'm having very little inspiration at the moment. The topic I've chosen relates to power in organisations, and can also encompass "empowerment". While I'm very tempted to go on a rant about how empowerment is very often used as a cheap "stroking" technique used to make workers feel engaged in their work, or, equally bad, ends up throwing a bunch of additional requirements onto people without their having the skills and resources to adequately discharge them, unfortunately, the essay question doesn't have quite that latitude (although I'll allude to some of that).

When it comes to power in the workplace, I'm all in favour of workers owning as much of it as they can (and by "workers", I include such non-typical categories as non-executive management). There are two issues with it, though, in terms of the areas where more self-management is devolved to workers. One is that many people are not enculturated to want it (or, they're psychologically averse to it, for whatever reasons), unless they specifically want to get into management. "Too much responsibility." "Why should I do my manager's job?" "It makes me feel insecure." "Who gets the blame when something goes wrong?" "Why should I do more work that I'm not paid for?" The second, and much more pertinent issue, is that not much real power (including resourcing, strategy, etc) is devolved to workers, even in incremental ways. Heh, this is even true for middle management in our organisation (and I really wonder what their function is sometimes). This is hardly a surprising issue, given the setup of most enterprises, and, in a more general sense, our being accustomed to hierarchy and top-down management.

While it might be easy to assume that nothing much will fundamentally change in that area, think of the changes our societies have gone through in the last few hundred years. We no longer believe that the monarch is directly anointed by God, nor do we believe our rulers have absolute rights over our lives. We believe in the notion of individual rights (which is a pretty recent innovation). Companies have also dramatically changed in the last couple of hundred years. You are not supposed to run businesses on slave labour. People must be paid in money and not kind, have reasonable time off, and so on. These kinds of things are enshrined in law, but the law was made because people's attitudes to exploitative and even paternalistic company cultures changed.

Then there are cool trends like the "recovered factories" in Argentina (after the early 2000s peso crash) and elsewhere. These businesses are run by the workers themselves as co-operatives. I find those kinds of enterprises fascinating.

My god, this is the most thinking I've done all day. I discovered's online stream today (the "iTunes/Winamp" aka .pls stream plays in VLC -192kbps works for me), and I've been listening to that while staring at VLC's "goom" visualisation. No drugs involved either, except Neurofen.

...OMG, I just found out that one of my favourite groups evah, Red Snapper, has a new album out, A Pale Blue Dot. I've been listening online, and while it's not as compelling as some of their earlier music, it's still decent. They've always been in the trip-hop/acid jazz area, but this album is definitely more into the downtempo acid jazz area (but not as anodyne as some of that stuff can be). ETA: I'll revise that last comment, because I said that before I listened to the third-to-last and final tracks. ICK. God, it looks like I won't be buying this one. I'll have to do a post on their greatest hits shortly.
trixtah: (Default)
As mentioned here. But I think this cartoon summarises things nicely:

Read more... )

Kind of reminiscent of Obama "cleaning up" after Bush. (And I wonder if Time deliberately chose that article title, because I've seen it less-charitably observed by some that things haven't changed that much in the White House from early times, with black men cleaning up the messes left by others).
trixtah: (Default)
If you were truly devoted to making the Freedom of Information laws truly about freedom of information, you wouldn't charge one red cent for processing an FOI request. Yes, I know they can be vexatious and time-wasting. So what? You build that cost into what it takes to run open and transparent government (although getting the higher-ups to fork out extra budget for those kinds of things could be challenging). That's nice that journalists and non-profits get to have 5 hours free time, while normal punters (and businesses) have to fork out after the first hour. At least querying information held about yourself will be free. But 20-30 years for releasing non-classified Cabinet documents and notebooks? Give me a break. I think that's disgusting, actually (although nearly half the current ridiculous span).

Still, they're appointing an Information Commissioner, and FOI commissioner, who will be aligned with the Privacy Commissioner in a new department. That makes sense. And the new rules will be much better than the current set, including the concept that disclosure should be assumed unless there are sufficient grounds for information to not be disclosed (which would not include such "grounds" as potentially causing embarrassment to the government).

In sum, B-minus, could do better. But it's a start.

ETA: I was also intending to mention a really good economics blog series by John Quiggan, which is about debunking various doctrines:

#1 The efficient markets hypothesis

#2 The case for privatisation

#3 The Great Moderation

#4 Individual retirement accounts

#5 Trickle down

Here's a bit discussing the "efficient markets hypothesis":

More important than asset markets themselves is their role in the allocation of investment. As Keynes said in his General Theory of Employment Interest and Money, this job is unlikely to be well done when it is a by-product of the activities of a casino. So, if the superficial resemblance of asset markets to gigantic casinos reflects reality, we would expect to see distortions in patterns of savings and investment. ...

The dotcom bubble was just one component of a massive asset price bubble that began in the early 1990s and is only now coming to an end. Throughout this period, patterns of savings and investment made little sense. Household savings plunged to zero and below in a number of developed countries (including nearly all English-speaking countries) and the resulting current account deficits were met by borrowing from rapidly growing poor countries like China (standard economics would suggest that capital flows should go in the other direction). The massive growth of the financial sector itself, which accounted for nearly half of all corporate profits by the end of the bubble, diverted physical and particularly human capital from the production of goods and services.
trixtah: (Default)
Cloud-computing is the buzzword du jour, and refers to services that host applications and data that are accessible by way of the Internet. Zoho/GoogleDocs, Microsoft Hosted Services and plenty of others are examples of these.

It's new assignment time - Reading Review: Are Leaders Smarter or Do They Just Seem That Way? - and, gah, I can't finish it off. I've been using an online service that is subscribed to by the university for my references, RefWorks. It's great, because you fill in these little forms for all the data, you can add notes and tags and whatever, you insert little macros in your doc and upload it (this works for all kinds of document formats, or you can install a Word add-in), and the product formats both the inline references (ick) and reference list perfectly... and the references are available wherever you are. In theory. Alas, I can't logon to the site today. From a non-university machine, you logon to the uni web proxy which then forwards the connection to Refworks, where you logon there. No dice. I tried from one of the university's machines subsequently, but no luck there either. This is the second time I've had trouble with this, meh.

So maybe one day we will be able to guarantee connectivity, security - and more importantly, responsive support - of applications and data hosted in the cloud, but that day hasn't happened yet. And if you're a money-making organisation, and/or one that needs to be able to respond quickly to clients, then you shouldn't rely on these services either (unless you're tiny). Part of the problem with these services is that the support can be dicey. RefWorks are yet to respond to any of my emails (I'll be chatting to the uni library tomorrow if it's still a problem); organisations like Google can be less than responsive. In an enterprise context, unless it's entirely shambolic, you'll at least have people you can talk to about the problems you're having, and you should also get a reasonable ETA of when they'll be fixed.

Anyway, moving onto the current events of the world, [ profile] cheshire_bitten expresses perfectly just what I've been thinking about the Catholic Church this past week.

trixtah: (Default)
How not to get phished

If you ever get an email purporting to be from your bank, or credit card company, or tax office, or Great Aunt Bessie who wants to know your credit card number or bank account details for some arcane reason, for god's sake, do not, even if it has all the logos and your name or anything, click on any links.

Simple. Here endeth the lesson.

But what if you're worried that your bank/credit card issuer/tax office/great aunt is genuinely trying to contact you about an urgent matter? Ok, open your browser, and type in your bank website address. If you don't know your bank website address, then you obviously haven't used online banking, so don't bother. Once you're on your bank website address, look for the account logon link, which should take you to a page with https: at the start of the address and a cute little golden lock icon on the bottom right of the browser window, or perhaps in the address bar. Somewhere. Then you can logon and see if your bank has actually been trying to get hold of you.

If it's Great Aunt Bessie, for chrissakes, give the old dear a ring. The phone is still a mighty handy instrument for banks/credit card companies/all of the above as well. Don't click the links!

That goes pretty much for any email message that contains links where the content is not obvious or trusted - you can hover over the link to see where it is intending to take you. If you're still unsure, you can type in the address from the "http://" up to the next "/" to check if the top level site is anything recognisable. Even that could be slightly risky, though.

On a slight change of topic, well, it's no wonder the govt in NZ doesn't give a shit about women's wages. Incriminating pictures from a "Job Summit" held by the govt to discuss employment during the current recession tell the story. Yep, white middle-aged men. Apparently 15% of the participants were actually women. 20 Maori, 2 PI men and one Asian guy. 60% from business, a big swodge from government (central and local), and a whole 3 people from community organisations. Ok, most employers are going to be men (gah!), but you can't tell me that 85% of civil servants and pollies are male. So much for quaint notions of representation.
trixtah: (Fem-uh-nist)
And on a more serious note, the National govt in NZ says to women in the public service: "No, you're not worth paying as much as men. Fuck off back to the kitchen, ladies."

The Government has axed two investigations aimed at improving the pay of women as it tries to save money by controlling public sector salaries. ...State Services Minister Tony Ryall said the [pay equity] investigations would "generate an additional form of remuneration pressure that is unaffordable in the current economic and fiscal environment".
Great! Saving money through discrimination! In the next news bulletin on Channel Trix, we look at how government can slash election costs up to 50% by repealing the 1893 Electoral Law Act that enfranchised those pesky women.


Feb. 16th, 2009 08:03 pm
trixtah: (blackout)
Cabernet Voltaire are shortly to release a new album... which is entirely remixes of one of my favourite kiwi dub outfits, Kora. How bloody cool is that! You can check out some of the tracks on the MyFace page - all the stuff in the media player with Kora in the name.

Talking about creative endeavours and their dissemination, I'm putting up a black icon in support of the protest against the new copyright legislation in NZ, which "would require ISPs to disconnect customers accused of downloading copyright material." Anyone could issue the equivalent of a DCMA takedown notice against a individual who is said to be hosting copyrighted material, and that individual/organisation would have to be kicked off the internet by their ISP. According to NZ's Consumer Institute (a very august body):

The onus is then on the customer to prove their case and get their website access reinstated. We believe this responsibility is open to malicious abuse by parties who wish to close-down websites or disrupt in some way another person's business or enjoyment of the use of the internet.

So much for innocent until proven guilty, eh, leaving aside the potential for abuse of this measure.
trixtah: (Fem-uh-nist)
So Bush was so bad, the US was able to suck it up and elect a black president.

Now that Iceland has had a financial meltdown (and I remember those ads for Icelandic banks when I was living in England), they are going to appoint an out lesbian, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, as the caretaker prime minister until the next election. First openly gay head of government in the world. Yay.

So, yay for barriers being broken down in many places. (And yes, I realise these people were very much elected/appointed on their merits - facetiousness r us!)

trixtah: (Default)
I'm a New Zealander, living in Australia. Most of the people I know are Aussies, Kiwis and Poms (the English). So why does what the leader of another country does on the other side of the Pacific have such an impact?

Firstly, thank god for his first couple of days in power. Formulating the orders and making the statements to get rid of Guantanamo Bay (and the secret CIA facilities), to ban lobbyists from being appointed to agencies they have lobbied about for 2 years, to strongly affirm a pro-choice stance, to affirm a policy of openness in government, to cap the wages of senior government figures, to instantly appoint a Middle-East envoy who was instrumental in brokering the terms which led to settlement in Northern Ireland, to ban fucking torture, to include the "non-believers" in his inauguration speech, and on and on.

Since I'm not an American, why is this so great? Because like it or not, America is a model for Western democracies. How the US handles its foreign relations and its economy affects us signficantly. (And we've certainly learned that pretty directly in the economic sense). Regarding the US's internal affairs, they are again a model. The erosion of social welfare, the casualisation of the workforce, the increasing stratification of society, free-marketeerism and so on, have all come about due to models that the US has provided and that various other countries have emulated to a greater or lesser degree. Basically, if the US rolls over, we have to move as well.

Naturally, compared to the US, most of our countries still seem pretty socialist by comparison, and the religious right has not really gained a political foothold (although they have slightly in Australia). But it seems it will increasingly become the fact that neo-right-wing politicians will not be able to point to the US to justify their plans to erode our rights and working conditions, or to promulgate pointless wars, or to engage in actions of dubious legality in the name of "security". For that, I am grateful. Long may it continue, and I'm sure that those of you who voted for him are thrilled to the core.

trixtah: (Default)
...and more specifically, the legacy of GWB.

I read somewhere recently - and I'm not sure where, probably the Huffington Post - that they are grateful for 8 years' of GWB's cockups, because they actually made it possible for a black man to be elected president of the US now. The "no more of this shit" vote did a lot to boost the Democrat vote, to be sure, and even those southern Democrats whose take on the race issue is less than nuanced.

Then a nicely angry "lest we forget" post from William Rivers Pitt.
Your greatness will be defined by how we rise to overcome and undo what you have done. Your greatness will stand forever if we never, ever forget the hard, bitter lessons you taught us.

Ok, "we will never forget" is one of those statements that sounds good, but rarely happens in a historical context, but still. Quality ranting.

Finally, I actually heard about a conspiracy theory that actually has some slight plausability to it. So Bush was warned about 9/11, albeit not with the specifics. Did he want a war then, and therefore didn't work too hard to avert the disaster (in whatever form it might take)? Hm.
trixtah: (Default)
This article in Business Week (of all places) is a good discussion of how the Maddow Ponzi/pyramid scheme can be an exemplar of how the US was able to get cheap credit for their less-than-robust financial dealings.

Like Madoff's trusting investors, the rest of the world was willing to assume that the U.S. economy as a whole was a low-risk, good-return investment. This belief drove the entire structure of global trade and finance for the past 10 years. And when the subprime crisis showed this assumption of low risk to be false, the financial crisis resulted.

... The second reason why the low-risk, good-return story wasn't true: the breakdown of regulation. And that's where we come back to the alleged Madoff scam. His was no complicated global securitization, based on black-box rocket science. Instead, it appears to be a good old-fashioned Ponzi scheme, enabled by a lack of government supervision.

Also, did we all see what Bush said a few days ago?

"Look, everybody likes to be popular," said Bush.

"What do you expect? We've got a major economic problem and I'm the president during the major economic problem. I mean, do people approve of the economy? No. I don't approve of the economy. ... I've been a wartime president. I've dealt with two economic recessions now. I've had, hell, a lot of serious challenges. What matters to me is I didn't compromise my soul to be a popular guy."

Um, hello, common factor with all those crises? You don't approve of how the economy is behaving right now, you don't put the conditions in place that make it happen! As for being a "wartime president", who caused those wars. Jesus, if you don't like it, then don't do it.

"I'm a free market guy," Bush said. "But I'm not going to let this economy crater in order to preserve the free market system. So we made a lot of very strong moves and it's been painful for a lot of people, particularly because, you know, this - the excesses of the past have caused a lot of folks to hurt ...."

Erm, so, you have to use "non-free-market" measures to "preserve" the free market system? I know there's a name for that kind of logical fallacy, but since I can't bring it to mind, I'll just stick with moronity. And how did the "excesses of the past" come about, huh?

Actually, I don't think Bush's policies are solely to blame for the current situation. I blame every president since Reagan, including Clinton, who did bugger-all in terms of winding back financial "excesses".
trixtah: (Fem-uh-nist)
It's the biggest circulation paper in NZ, and has a pretty good website, but its right-wing bias has become increasingly marked in recent years, and now there is a right-wing government, they're just having a ball.

Onto the dire crap of the day. Paul Holmes is a talkback dj and general "media personality". He's also a little shitfaced toad who should get fucked (although I believe he's "straight" these days), and emigrate to somewhere socially progressive like Saudi Arabia, where I'm sure the sexual politics would suit him right down to the ground. He was interviewing the putative new leader of the Labour Party (Phil Goff), who was explaining how the Labour Party should be proud of so many years of successful government. Holmes' skewer-em-when they're down interview technique elicited the following journalistic highpoint:

But when I suggested to him people might have been tired of being told what to do by intellectual left-wing feminist women, he acknowledged there had grown the perception of the "nanny" state.

Look, Paul, you pathetic little fucktard. We have been governed by jumped-up little selfish unreconstructed sexist classist dickwad men for the last nearly 200 years (Westminister parliamentary system), and some of us "intellectual" left-wing feminist women (who obviously aren't "people") are tired of the Entitlement you seem to feel is due to you and your ilk, and are tired of being told what to do by inadequate blustering Neanderthals. If you think having a few declared feminists in government in the last 9 years is such a threat to the country's (and your) health and well-being, you'd better either harden up and get used to it (once we get rid of this new lot of morons), or die in a fucking fire because you obviously aren't going to cope with life in this century where it's not all about women pandering to your and your equally-dinosaur mates' pathetic little penises egos.

Fuck I'm pissed off. GAH. Why why why did I click on that link?

trixtah: (Default)
Because now that NZ is going to be run by stick-in-the-mud wankers, fundamentalists, and free-market arseholes, I don't want to be there anyway. Helen Clark won't be able to horse-trade herself out of that debacle (by doing creative coalition negotiation).

Here's hoping the Nats cock up the next 3 years so badly, the lefties will get in by a landslide next time (having learned their lessons about complacency). I'm glad the Greens polled more than ACT (free-market arseholes who like selling off national infrastructure) and United Future (fundamentalists, although they don't say they are too overtly) put together. In an interesting development, the Māori Party only got just over 2% of the votes (Māori are around 13% of the population). I hope that Tariana Turia uses this as a time of reflection. Because if she thinks National and their cronies will give her what she wanted, she's SoL (she encouraged Māori party voters to consider National, because she has such an animus against the Labour Party).

Oh, and fucking Roger Douglas in Cabinet? How utterly wonderful. NZ just bought back the bloody railways (after the PM-to-be's company of the time snaffled them up at the firesale put on by their National Party mates). Definitely buh-bye to national infrastructure, then. And as much of the super and the best accident compensation scheme in the world as they can get their hands on.


trixtah: (Default)

January 2016

2425 2627282930


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags