I just had a look at the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act. Holy fuck New Zealand, you really don’t like due process, the presumption of innocence, or any of the basic prinicples of justice that most developed countries have come to take as granted.

It’s a Labour Party bill (no surprises there) and it’s now MACTional legislation (no surprises either).

It’s a wonderful piece of law. I’ll highlight the good parts.

It allows the police to seize material assets. There is no requirement to prove guilt of any crime. There is no requirement that any proceedings have even been launched, in NZ or overseas. And if proceedings have been launched, but quashed, that’s fine too. Whatever they seize, well it doesn’t matter who actually owns it.

Of course, for all of this to apply, you have to have “engaged in by a person that if proceeded against” an act that would attract a maximum sentence of 5 years or more, or would have material benefits of $30,000 or more.

Of course, how we would know that you’ve engaged in something if no proceedings have to been launched, or have been quashed? Well that’s a technicality.

Anyway, 5 years sounds reasonable. Y’know, murder, racketeering, dealing amphetamines, that kind of thing. Until you realise that there are plenty of offences in NZ that have maximum sentences above 5 years. All the police have to do is accuse you of one of these (intentional damage is one such offence), and assert that you’ve gained monetary advantage from doing so.

So yeah, you’ve done well NZ, be proud.

Murray McCully is seemingly unaware of what NZAID does, and is lost in rhetoric. He’s stated that:

aid “payments” are “a handout rather than a hand up …. You could ride around in a helicopter pushing hundred-dollar notes out the door and call that poverty elimination.”

He’s also calling for NZAID to be abolished and subsumed under MFAT, in order that NZ’s aid be used for explicitly political purposes.

These are bad moves. It would mean the significant loss of a focus on preventing human suffering, and to this end  campaign has been launched by key NZ NGOs at: www.dontcorruptaid.org.nz This is obviously extremely concerning, and deserves the bulk of attention in challenging these moves.

I want to talk here however about the political implications.

Not only would politicising aid mean less chance to tackle the causes of suffering (and a fair whack of instability that is in no sovereign state’s interest), but it is also bad politics.

Murray McCully may not realise, but the Pacific Island states feel bullied already by some of the actions of New Zealand and Australia, and advice from these countries on how to conduct their affairs has come in way that has been seen more as a directive than as friendly help. Thankfully, MFAT, Goff and Clark have realised this, and have mainly applied a softer hand, excepting Fiji’s regime.

The rhetoric that McCully is spouting about being able to force Pacific hands on issues by using aid as a blunt instrument is quite disturbing. Pacific nations aren’t likely to respond well to this kind of approach, from the academic literature I’ve read that examines how these countries actually feel about NZ and Australia’s role in the Pacific. McCully seems to have no idea that NZ’s position in the Pacific comes as much from relationships and it’s Pacific immigrant community as it does from being a regional power. These are smart and proud people, and deserve our respect.

To do otherwise is cede the Pacific to China, which is greatly increasing its aid delivery (and Taiwan to a lesser extent), and is doing so in ways that leaders of these countries are quite comfortable with.

Of course, not all of their aid is focused on things that will deliver long term aid and stability. It is also a bad move politically in the rest of the world. NZ’s aid goes to a large number of countries. NZ’s contribution to Indonesia, the world’s fourth largest country, is not huge, being around $14 million, and directed to a small number of programs, but I know that it is noticed and appreciated.  Developing countries are by their nature growing in economic terms, and growing in influence. Aid forms an important part of bilateral relations, and to lose this in order to try and bully the Pacific is an incredibly shortsighted and naive.

Of course, this should not be the only reason for aid – it should be focused on the elimination of human suffering, but it is also a crucial form of soft power and small state diplomacy. The United States under Bush was still seen quite favourably because of its large and consistent aid to HIV/AIDS and malaria programs.

Not only will these changes have harmful effects if they come about, they are likely to harm rather than help McCully’s vision of a New Zealand with regional clout. And that is doubly stupid.

The New Zealand Government has reintroduced the indicators sir and dame.

The title sir harks back to days of serfdom – when society was honestly and transparently divided into social classes. It is a hangup from England, and nothing to be proud of. It speaks of slavery.

I’m also ashamed. Are minds really that colonised. Do people need father figures they can respect, rather than respecting themselves? Is this the New Zealand that people want? Something out of the 1890s?

I sat round a table two weeks ago with friends from across Europe. They asked me why NZ took so many of the elements of Anglosphere culture that aren’t worth copying, the things that are proven to make people miserable. I couldn’t answer them.

If there weren’t a lot of people I love in NZ, I doubt I’d be going back. I feel like an exile right now, unable to affect conditions in my home country and although it didn’t begin under National, the emotion is intensifying.

I’ve joined the blackout to protest against NZ’s new draconian copyright laws.

The blackout is just about spreading the message – the campaign also happens in letters, protests, and across other venues.

I hope it’s the first of many such memes; I love how simple it is, and watching it spread from a couple of geeks I(including myself) on Twitter and Public Address System, to taking over the world

One of the many things that concerns me is workplace and other exposure to toxic chemicals. I was reminded of the issue today when I read this article in the New York Times.

I can’t say I’m an expert; many people I know have much more knowledge about these matters – this issue has been the intersection between environmental, community, and workers groups for decades now. And god knows I’m not a chemist.

What I do know however is that the great majority of chemicals used have never been tested, and those that have been tested have been tested on animals giving toxic or uncertain results (as well as the obvious ethical problems, the uncertainty of animal models is a major reason against using them). There are a heap of toxic chemicals floating round, being exposed to workers. I know this, because I’ve been in workplaces where long-term brain-damage was an occupational hazard. I know that a close family member very nearly died due to occupational chemical exposure.

It doesn’t have to be this way. I’m fucked off that Labour has continued to resist moves to make the precautionary principle the approach to chemical use, and to ban those chemicals which are known toxins. They’ve also refused to legislate to make high-quality masks and protective gear the standard in workplaces. People are dying, needlessly.

This issue has been fought by Sue Kedgely in the Greens, and Greenpeace and other organisations. I’m heartened by Catherine Delahunty’s entry to Parliament, I know she’ll make an impact on this issue, as one of the country’s most dedicated campaigners on toxics. I only hope that this is not a partisan issue, once again relegated to the “nutty ban everything Green” corner.

I know that Labour aren’t currently the Government. Perhaps National, in their new “centrist” positioning will be amenable to these changes? Perhaps Labour will make this an issue from across the benches. Perhaps the CTU will campaign on the issue? I hope so. I don’t want more people to suffer.

Protection from exposure is a right.

The other big ticket items Thain purchased include: $87,000 for an area rug in Thain’s conference room and another area rug for $44,000; a “mahogany pedestal table” for $25,000; a “19th Century Credenza” in Thain’s office for $68,000; a sofa for $15,000; four pairs curtains for $28,000; a pair of guest chairs for $87,000; a “George IV Desk” for $18,000; 6 wall sconces for $2,700; six chairs in his private dining room for $37,000; a mirror in his private dining room for $5,000; “40 yards of farbric for wall panels,” for $5,000, a “parchment waste can” for $1,400…

It continues on.

Sound familiar?

Since this is a blog, my blog, I can write what I want to write… including talkback style rants. This may be the first of many.

I’m in the mood for spouting. About what laws are desperately needed in NZ (many could apply to Australia too, of course).

There needs to be a law making it compulsory for landlords to provide garden space. And fruit trees. Herb boxes for those in apartments.

Councils should plant fruiting trees alongside the others they already do. An olive tree in my street would be good.

I should be allowed to have chickens.  I love chickens, a friend giving them away needs them taken, the housemates who buy freerange (and aren’t going to do otherwise) should be able to have their own, and the rabbit needs company.

Bicycles should have right of way. Actually that’s a whole other post.

People should not be allowed to water lawns. Especially in Australia, but anywhere really. It’s insane. Put something on your lawn that grows in the conditions.

New Zealand should really pay more attention to Indonesia. It is the 4th largest country in the world, and our largest near-neighbour. Australia pays it slightly more, but even here is experiencing a crisis in Indonesian studies, as enrollments drop and schools no longer teach it. Say what you like about Keating, this was one area he did well in.

Indonesian should be taught in NZ schools. Indonesian is an easy language to pick up, with a roman script relatively simple initial grammar and large number of loanwords. It is especially so for those with familiarity with Māori – which is to say almost everybody in NZ, because of the similarities in pronunciation and other family resemblances.

Indonesia may be a developing nation, but it is precisely that, developing and the developments it takes will be influenced by who interacts with it, and how. New Zealand faces missing some huge opportunities, and the chance to engage with the region. This again deserves a proper commentary, which may come later.

Hard and “medium” toothbrushes should be illegal. They damage tooth enamel and are a threat to our wellbeing. I used a medium one by accident the other day, and felt like my teeth were being torn to pieces. All good dentists agree.

I’m in favour of the police removing the cars of people we don’t like from the road and crushing them. Can I start by naming a few?

Ok, not much of a post. Sorry about that… but this gem from Michael Tobis is worth sharing. His take on the mad state of affairs we live in:

OK, never mind, for the moment, if lawns are a good idea. Let’s consider lawnmowers.

If you have a typical American house, you have a typical lawn in front of it, a lawn that is in need of occasional trimming. Unless you contract out for lawn services, you almost certainly own a lawnmower too. Most likely it has a cheesy, loud, polluting two-stroke engine.
You only use this for a half hour every other week, or 1/336 of the time. OK, you don’t want people mowing lawns at night, so say 1/168 of the available daylight time. So you and your 167 nearest neighbors own 168 times too many lawnmowers. If you could coordinate your lawnmowing, you would need to spend 1/168 as much on a lawnmower. Similar calculations apply to every other household tool you own that you don’t use intensively in your work or your principal hobbies.
And it continues, reaching a conclusion that is already obvious to many I know, but with radical conclusions if taken to its logical endpoint.We’d have less lawnmowers. And less people working to make them, and working to earn to buy them.
The productive economy as currently configured is productive of a great number of uneccesary goods, and we need to radically decrease the production of these. Doing so, however, is political suicide – who wants to put the domestic manufacturing industry out of business?
Kevin Kelly considers the issue from the perspective of the consumer, and concludes that sharing is better than owning. The way he describes things has nothing to do with  demand destruction (of produced goods) due to seeing limitations in sharing of physical objects. Some of these are real, certainly, but I think he overstates them, and is less interesting in his conclusions as a result.
Until recently, in most cases you would have to build and maintain relationships to do so, or pay high rental costs to for-profit businesses. While there is nothing inherently wrong with relationship based sharing, it can be an intensive use of your time and energy, and is often fraught with difficulty – I’m often reluctant to lend things or borrow from people because if things go wrong it can damage relationships. But exchanging things with friends, family and neighbours is worthwhile. Tobis again:
The answer to past overproduction can’t be to bring back the good old days of overproduction.
Don’t work too hard to keep your job. Apply your extra efforts to find out how you can contribute to the informal economy.
Don’t replace your lawnmower. Meet your neighbors.
Relaxation is progress. Take advantage of the Great Unwinding, and unwind.
There is also a middle way that allows people with loose connections who aren’t trying to exploit each other for profit to share items. Mutual aid, if you will. I’d post about these, but I’m lacking in links for these at the moment. I’m hopeful that as time goes by more of these systems can be developed and made use of.
I’d be interested to hear others thoughts and experiences of sharing schemes, both non-profit and for-profit.
Ok, maybe that was more than just a link. I can’t help myself!

I’m on hiatus, but this creation from Florian Habicht was just too good to ignore. Who else could turn a rugby game into a fairy tale?

From the movie Rubbings of a Live Man.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4476

If you are trying to save your thesis, I cannot recommend this extension enough.

Now,  after this post, contradiction.wordpress.com goes onto my hard block list (set for access on Sundays only, locked-down so I can’t unlock it through options), as have many other sites. Extreme procrastination needs extreme tools!

Blogging is fun, and a useful intellectual outlet and source of information and ideas. It is however quite time consuming. Because I’m feeling like I’m on the sharp end of thesis writing, this blog is now in hiatus, for several months. I’ll review where I’m at in December.

I’m also deleting most of my blogroll feeds- even very worthwhile blogs written by people I know and have a lot of time for, such as The Hand Mirror, are going away for a while. Forgive this self indulgent post, but I thought I should explain my absence!

Eredwen made a comment on Frogblog that I thought was worth addressing. It is one of the problems with the current Green campaigning mindset, in my opinion. I’ve been campaigning with local candidates in the ACT, and although the political systems and circumstances are quite different, I’ve come to the conclusion that people don’t merely vote on their values.

<blockquote>
I worked as the Green’s scruitineer in the last election and at that booth, the Green Candidate Vote was almost double the Green Party Vote
… all those well meaning but wasted votes … (sigh!)
</blockquote>

Could it be that those voters were happy with neither the Labour nor National candidates, and genuinely wanted an alternative to represent them on local issues?

It’s too late to do so now, but I really do think that if the Greens put up some people who were well known and respected as leaders in their communities, and campaigned hard on them in seats where the incumbent is a wet blanket, they’d have a chance, and would drive up the party vote too. It does require energy, and can detract from the task of campaigning for the party vote, which matters most. It does make sense that getting the party vote is currently the key priority.

However, like it or not, people want a <i>person</i> locally they can identify with (even if they identify with Jeanette or Sue B in Wellington). Thus far, getting the electorate vote has only been a waste where the party hasn’t had a genuine chance of winning an electorate. I think that the number of electorates that the Greens could win is higher than they think, should they provide winnable candidates in them. It’s a long term strategy of course, and building a candidate does not happen overnight. But it is a strategy worth pursuing.

Electorates are a very useful thing to have at hand (just ask any of the other parties in Parliament). The Greens have stood candidates in local government, and for other public forums, and have had successes. Building from the bottom up is completely necessary, and the Greens do recognise that.

In the last couple of weeks there has been plenty written about the current violence in Bolivia. The rich southern provinces have been fighting desperately against the popularly elected government of Evo Morales’ MAS Party, who won overwhelmingly a recall referendum designed to oust him.

However, little backstory is ever given. The violence of everyday suffering that has savaged the population for hundreds of years is all but invisible in the popular press.

The storm that bends the birch trees
Is held to be violent
But how about the storm
That bends the backs of the roadworkers?

Brecht – On Violence

Neither is it reported that the victims of the Pando Massacre include members human rights groups, indigenous and land reform organisations, and the indigenous leader Bernadino Racua.

Both this everyday violence and the more spectacular form are not an aberration, but part of a very consistent pattern in Bolivia, in which force is used to suppress popular movements that would reappropriate the resources stolen from them, and finally lift themselves out of poverty. It should also surprise none that the United States ambassador had been meeting with the leaders of this violence before he was expelled for trying to implement the Monroe doctrine.

Justin Podur gives a useful backgrounder on the situation, and this Magnum photo-essay on the election of Morales is worth watching. The moment in which he declares “Compañeros!” (fellow people) is electrifying.

Chris Anderson photo essay

Since I’ve been slack with the posting lately, here’s something I wrote for a friend’s magazine.

Desire and Consumption

I was talking to my neighbour on the weekend, about how lucky we really are in this country. He’s a development economist, with a hot partner (more on that later) and has spent much of his time and career observing real poverty. In a developed country such as New Zealand, every basic need is covered. Food, excretion, sleep, clothing and shelter. We all have these. Well, Brother thinks the last two are optional… but once there’s a DVD player in every house, most material needs are pretty well covered.

We live without fear of serious threats to our material wellbeing, what more is there for us to want? Plenty, as should be obvious; sex, emotional fulfilment, and social acceptance. All of which are worthwhile. So it is only natural that the makers and sellers of products would seek to connect our needs for these things with the products they sell.

Our economic system would collapse without constant growth. Even the Great Depression was not a contraction in the world economy, but a slowing to a growth rate of 1%. A drop in the mechanism of consumption sends great nations into recessions. Which of New Zealand political parties even considers abandoning growth? We have to want more. It is our patriotic and economic duty.

Advertising is the fairytale of capitalism. Once people’s basic needs are looked after, their needs to be advertising for things to be sold. Advertising proceeds wherever capitalism goes, telling stories of better lives. When was the last time you saw something sold through the presentation of life in all its faults? Instead, the situations are idealised – and we are identified with those idealised people doing idealised things. If we consume more, we can come closer to achieving perfection, and fulfilling those deeper needs we have like love.

This desire for what we do not yet have means that even when we have someone quite lovely beside us, we’re exhorted to want more. Even when we ourselves form the happiness of another, we’re told that we must do more to deserve their love (and by implication, to stop their heart and interest from straying). They say that “sex sells”. It isn’t sex we are being sold, but the promise of sex, a promise that advertising can never deliver on.

A better set of legs, a better car, better clothing. Most of us are almost constantly victims of desires. But it isn’t an unmediated set of things we are presented with and told are needs, but one that is optimised to create the most consumption. Some of us resist successfully the images we’re presented of ‘better people, made whole through the consumption of items’. The rest will never be happy, because there is always something that we do not have.

Cheating is about taking that idealised other. Lust, desire, raw sexual energy, directed at someone other than the person we’ve agreed to remain faithful to. Not accepting the one we have, who will always have his or her faults, and will never have the perfect breasts or personality. It’s the act of looking lustfully at others while you reluctantly make do with the one you’re with that is so awful about cheating. But this is precisely what advertising is about.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s hot young partner. Thou shall not have sex with your neighbour’s partner. Sometimes cheating is worthwhile, and the benefits promised are real, and other times, there is less there than promised. But there is always a cost to making good on this desire, and the same is true of taking the fruits offered by advertisers. Buying more than we strictly need means enslavement to work, debt, and a system where we spend most of our time doing things we rather wouldn’t. In the past they predicted that we would in the future only work a few hours a week, because our needs would be satisfied. We now recognise the stupidity of such predictions – our ‘needs’ are unlimited.

However, there isn’t much that we can do about the manufacture of desire – short of abolishing the capitalist system and replacing it with a system that does not require the production of needs. We have to consciously realise that real desire and sexuality are largely outside of the realm of commerce. It isn’t a life of privation, but one without the constant bombardment of unfulfilled desires.

“Can’t buy me love”, Lennon sung. And he was right. When was the last time you saw love, emotional fulfilment, wisdom, or acceptance advertised?

And this is where Marx (and others) went wrong. With his philosophy of action, and his belied in liberation through production, he seriously thought that if things were well organised enough, and there were enough material goods in the world, we’d essentially be happy. Don’t laugh at him though. There are capitalists who at this very moment believe essentially the same things. Go down to Lambton Quay, or turn on your television if you don’t believe me.

So what do we do? Work out what you need. And realise that the rest of things aren’t necessarily things that you want, but desires that have been presented so many times they’re now imprinted on you as real. We need to be free of this endless desire for more and better things we are sold as a proxy for fulfilment, acceptance, love, sex, and psychological desires. Only then we can spend the rest of my time doing what is really important: engaging with our very human desires which can be fulfilled.