Close Up (a news magazine show) last evening featured an item on Robots in a rest home here in Auckland. This is a trial that is underway to evaluate various robots to see what help if any they can be within the aged care setting.
The robots seemed at the lower end of what is possible, mostly reminding people about their meds taking blood pressure readings and the like, they certainly were not mobile or truly autonomous. The feedback that the show presents after items such as this was enlightening, two comments were presented and both of them referred to this simply being a cost cutting exercise to eliminate wage costs. No such mention had been made of anything like that in the actual article so this is probably a sub conscious display of peoples fears of such technology.
This article is another example of synchronicity for me as I had already been considering the impact of robots on our society. This interest had been sparked by the release of Honda’s latest robot, Asimov. Who is more the embodiment of what we generally think of as a robot, a mechanical person. It was the sophistication of this particular robot that had me thinking as it can clearly perform a lot of interesting tasks and it is only a development project currently. (refer Youtube.com and search for Honda Robot)
The fact that it is Honda’s robot is also of interest, Honda clearly makes mass market “things” and is presumably investing in this technology because they think there is or will be a market for them. I mean who wouldn’t want one of these fetching you a drink or better yet doing some chores like ironing etc. The meet, greet and direct function demonstrated on one of the videos is a useful application right there for some larger organisations. Not a great leap to see these things in stores walking the floors and helping customers. Do you want to buy a skill saw? Follow the robot assistant to where they are and it can then answer your questions about the saws, once you have selected one pick it up and carry it to the register where potentially another one completes the check out and then the saw is carried to your car for you.
This is far from science fiction; Asimov could clearly do this right now without any problems. But what happens to the people that do this now? Well clearly they are out of a job right but that is just the way of technology so why worry, when blacksmithing went into decline we had the rise of the mechanic so no big problem.
Well I don’t want to sound like a Luddite but this time I suspect this is different. Just think for a moment of all the jobs that can be displaced by robots and it is a lot, basically it is any job that does not require creativity. Factory jobs, pretty much all gone. Food service, all gone. Shop service, gone. Construction, gone. (yes construction, while complicated once the plans a drawn the rest is pretty much a process.) Information provision (thinking teaching). Surgery, perhaps not gone but there are already robots doing brain surgery. Robot Surgery
See the problem with this technology is that it is so pervasive and is specifically designed to replace humans not to augment them. How does the world work when most people have no work to do? Who is going to buy the goods and services all the robots produce? I can’t imagine my way to how this works out but what I do know is there is a robot coming to your life very soon (think 10 years) either as your helper or replacement. Something to think about.
I came across this little bit of doggerel some years back which now seems potentially prophetic.
When Machines do our work and machines do our play
For then we shall all be in clover
We’ll have nothing to do all the live long day
Till the machines that do nothing take over
Random thoughts on Random topics sparked by my travels through life and the things I see or hear on the way
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
The measure of the thing
Recently, if you follow such things, there has been some internet chatter about the possibility that some CERN scientists (the LHC chaps) have found neutrinos travelling faster than light. For those of us focused on the mortgage and such like this is fairly dull news but for physicist this would put a major dent in the theory of relativity and everything else that is built on this theory, hence the chatter.
Because of the importance of this issue a lot of attention has been focused on the experiment and some criticism made of the accuracy of the measurements involved. One of the measuring devices (don’t ask me which one) had a potential error rate of 30 billionth of a second, which apparently at light speed could be an issue so they have improved it down to 3 billionth of a second for their second try. (Just sit and try and imagine how small that is for a moment.). Next issue is the distance from the start of the race and the end, they are using about 450km and for some reason an exact measurement of this is important also. (I would have thought if both things travel the same distance and one is first the exact distance wouldn’t matter, shows what I know) But the main point is that measurement is important if you want the correct answer.
It reminded me that we are quite keen on measuring things, you can go to university and do a 4 year course on it if you like (surveying). It also reminded me of when we adopted the metric system in this country and there was an extended education campaign. As a kid the most memorable item was a ruler that had inches on one side and centimetres on the other side. It was made of wood and made a very satisfactory sound if one end was held by the lid of my desk and the other end was twanged to make it vibrate. Very educational but probably more about the relationship of pitch to wave length, (not that I could have told you that at the time), than measurement.
So of course the measurement issue comes up a lot, if you want your view point to sound authoritive it doesn’t hurt to have some numbers or statistics to back it up. A technique that I frequently use myself I will admit. But there are some numbers that are simply irritating due to their actual lack of substance versus their perceived importance.
One that irritates me a lot is the “Poverty Line” we hear all the time that people are this or that in relation to the Poverty Line. Well let’s start with, in NZ there is no such agreed number. So this so called line is presumably where people wish to place it which isn’t much of a yard stick is it.
A recent idea that has had a bit of press lately is “there are 220,000 children living in poverty” this comes from the commissioner for children and he has at least had the good manners to define what in his view poverty is and according to him these children are living in households with income less than 60% of the median income. OK so what is the median income, well according to Statistics NZ’s June 2011 survey it is now just a touch under $41,000 per annum, so 60% of that is approx $25,000. So to make the remark easier to understand if you have an income of less than $25,000 and you have children you are according to the children’s commissioner living in poverty.
So who are these people, well despite my dislike of the idea of minimum wage legislation this is useful in this conversation as it is currently $13 per hour or roughly $26,000 per annum. Therefore it is easy to conclude based on the above that poor people in NZ are those that either don’t work or only work part time. (for whatever reason) So reframed the idea is “If you don’t work you don’t earn much” Gee what a shock.
Yes, yes I know there is no work out there etc, but that is a different issue isn’t it. Do we really expect people who don’t work to be well off?
Because of the importance of this issue a lot of attention has been focused on the experiment and some criticism made of the accuracy of the measurements involved. One of the measuring devices (don’t ask me which one) had a potential error rate of 30 billionth of a second, which apparently at light speed could be an issue so they have improved it down to 3 billionth of a second for their second try. (Just sit and try and imagine how small that is for a moment.). Next issue is the distance from the start of the race and the end, they are using about 450km and for some reason an exact measurement of this is important also. (I would have thought if both things travel the same distance and one is first the exact distance wouldn’t matter, shows what I know) But the main point is that measurement is important if you want the correct answer.
It reminded me that we are quite keen on measuring things, you can go to university and do a 4 year course on it if you like (surveying). It also reminded me of when we adopted the metric system in this country and there was an extended education campaign. As a kid the most memorable item was a ruler that had inches on one side and centimetres on the other side. It was made of wood and made a very satisfactory sound if one end was held by the lid of my desk and the other end was twanged to make it vibrate. Very educational but probably more about the relationship of pitch to wave length, (not that I could have told you that at the time), than measurement.
So of course the measurement issue comes up a lot, if you want your view point to sound authoritive it doesn’t hurt to have some numbers or statistics to back it up. A technique that I frequently use myself I will admit. But there are some numbers that are simply irritating due to their actual lack of substance versus their perceived importance.
One that irritates me a lot is the “Poverty Line” we hear all the time that people are this or that in relation to the Poverty Line. Well let’s start with, in NZ there is no such agreed number. So this so called line is presumably where people wish to place it which isn’t much of a yard stick is it.
A recent idea that has had a bit of press lately is “there are 220,000 children living in poverty” this comes from the commissioner for children and he has at least had the good manners to define what in his view poverty is and according to him these children are living in households with income less than 60% of the median income. OK so what is the median income, well according to Statistics NZ’s June 2011 survey it is now just a touch under $41,000 per annum, so 60% of that is approx $25,000. So to make the remark easier to understand if you have an income of less than $25,000 and you have children you are according to the children’s commissioner living in poverty.
So who are these people, well despite my dislike of the idea of minimum wage legislation this is useful in this conversation as it is currently $13 per hour or roughly $26,000 per annum. Therefore it is easy to conclude based on the above that poor people in NZ are those that either don’t work or only work part time. (for whatever reason) So reframed the idea is “If you don’t work you don’t earn much” Gee what a shock.
Yes, yes I know there is no work out there etc, but that is a different issue isn’t it. Do we really expect people who don’t work to be well off?
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Tough Sell
I have sometimes wondered about the poor chap that took up the job of telephone salesman to sell the first telephones. I mean think about the sort of conversations he would have had.
“Good Morning Lord Meldue, I would like to interest you in the very latest technology, the Telephone, it will revolutionise all aspects of commerce and social discourse”
“Well that sounds exciting what does it do?”
“Well you simply pick up this part and you can talk to anyone you like without leaving your house”
“Marvelous old chap, let’s talk to Lord Budgie I need to send word to him about lunch”
“Ah, well you can’t actually do that yet”
“Why not?”
“Well Lord Budgie would need one too and then we, the telephone company need to run a wire from your house to his house”
“I see, well who can I speak with?”
“Well currently no one because you will be the first”
“So I should buy this thing, so that it should do nothing until such time as my friends buy one, also to do nothing, until after you have run wires to and from all of their houses to mine, and then the thing will work”
“Exactly sir you have it now”
“Thank you but goodbye to you”
When you think about how did this system ever get going, the very idea of running wire from every house to a central exchange seems extraordinary but that is how it works after all.
And there is a lot of this stuff when you start thinking about it, Sir Walter Raleigh who brought tobacco back to England. “well you take these leaves place them inside a paper roll put one end in your mouth and set light to the end” or “you take this powder of ground up leaves and shove it up your nose” You really do have to admire the salespeople who pulled off getting tobacco off the ground.
But the tough sell I was really thinking about was God, without Heaven. Is there a religion that does not promise an afterlife which is as far as I can tell an improvement on the current state? So why do all religions have a heaven?
There is no automatic connection between the existence of God and the existence of an afterlife, apparently according to most religious traditions this is exactly the proposition that holds for all creatures on earth except us of course. Dogs don’t go to heaven according to any priest of minister I have ever spoken to, which in my mind is a yawning gap in the system as I like my dogs a lot more than most people I know.
I reckon you don’t find a God without a heaven because it would be a tough sell. It would be similar to the conversation above wouldn’t it. “you should worship God and do as he says” “and if I don’t” “well he will be really grumpy with you”, “umm I’ll get back to you”
So it seems potentially that Heaven may potentially be nothing more than an air points scheme dreamed up by religious advertisers to encourage people to join their team. As a scheme of course it is perfect because the liability to deliver is placed on someone else and only after the customer is dead and effectively worthless from a mortal bound churches point of view.
Based on my scant understanding of Buddhism this appears to be a system of Heaven but no God which may be a step in the right direction, also dogs presumably are part of the cycle of life they seem to believe in. Not sure if the orange robes would come in my size and then there is the whole don’t eat meat thing... Hmm it’s a hard road finding the perfect religion.
“Good Morning Lord Meldue, I would like to interest you in the very latest technology, the Telephone, it will revolutionise all aspects of commerce and social discourse”
“Well that sounds exciting what does it do?”
“Well you simply pick up this part and you can talk to anyone you like without leaving your house”
“Marvelous old chap, let’s talk to Lord Budgie I need to send word to him about lunch”
“Ah, well you can’t actually do that yet”
“Why not?”
“Well Lord Budgie would need one too and then we, the telephone company need to run a wire from your house to his house”
“I see, well who can I speak with?”
“Well currently no one because you will be the first”
“So I should buy this thing, so that it should do nothing until such time as my friends buy one, also to do nothing, until after you have run wires to and from all of their houses to mine, and then the thing will work”
“Exactly sir you have it now”
“Thank you but goodbye to you”
When you think about how did this system ever get going, the very idea of running wire from every house to a central exchange seems extraordinary but that is how it works after all.
And there is a lot of this stuff when you start thinking about it, Sir Walter Raleigh who brought tobacco back to England. “well you take these leaves place them inside a paper roll put one end in your mouth and set light to the end” or “you take this powder of ground up leaves and shove it up your nose” You really do have to admire the salespeople who pulled off getting tobacco off the ground.
But the tough sell I was really thinking about was God, without Heaven. Is there a religion that does not promise an afterlife which is as far as I can tell an improvement on the current state? So why do all religions have a heaven?
There is no automatic connection between the existence of God and the existence of an afterlife, apparently according to most religious traditions this is exactly the proposition that holds for all creatures on earth except us of course. Dogs don’t go to heaven according to any priest of minister I have ever spoken to, which in my mind is a yawning gap in the system as I like my dogs a lot more than most people I know.
I reckon you don’t find a God without a heaven because it would be a tough sell. It would be similar to the conversation above wouldn’t it. “you should worship God and do as he says” “and if I don’t” “well he will be really grumpy with you”, “umm I’ll get back to you”
So it seems potentially that Heaven may potentially be nothing more than an air points scheme dreamed up by religious advertisers to encourage people to join their team. As a scheme of course it is perfect because the liability to deliver is placed on someone else and only after the customer is dead and effectively worthless from a mortal bound churches point of view.
Based on my scant understanding of Buddhism this appears to be a system of Heaven but no God which may be a step in the right direction, also dogs presumably are part of the cycle of life they seem to believe in. Not sure if the orange robes would come in my size and then there is the whole don’t eat meat thing... Hmm it’s a hard road finding the perfect religion.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Occupy
These occupy people have become cause for some head scratching. Originally I thought they were the usual grab bag of professional protesters and complainers and I still think some of them are. And I have no idea what they want. Well yes I know they want the world to be fairer and nicer and lets all hold hands and the like but.... what exactly is their proposed solution to the problems they have identified. It is hard for concrete thinkers like myself to get on board with ideas based on feel good slogans. But gradually and grudgingly they have earned a level of respect from me.
Our City Council is desperate to have them removed and stop them from making the place untidy and has called on the police to “do their duty” and forcibly evict them. The police refused which made the Mayor very unhappy. Trouble is I find myself agreeing with the police. These people are being totally peaceful and very polite. They don’t shout and carry on, they don’t get in the faces of passersby no one is prevented from their lawful business and I suspect with Christmas approaching and their “campground” normally be used for various events they are more than likely to politely move out of the way for the event and move back once it is over. It’s actually hard to dislike people who are acting reasonably even if you don’t understand what it is they want. Live and let Die I have always said so why should they be “bullied” by the police.
The other level of success for the protesters is I have been paying more attention to the rich / poor divide and wondering what the solution to this is. The current political flavours don’t seem to work. On the right we have “every man for himself and work hard” On the left we have the equally silly “let’s all share everything evenly” Then we have the Green movement which seems to desire a great leap backwards to a non existent fairytale world of gentle farmers.
So articulating the problem is pretty easy, the economic cake is not shared evenly enough. We decide what share of the cake you should get by assigning value to the inputs you bring to the economic table be that labour, mental labour or capital. So based on that equation some peoples inputs are not valued at a high enough level to make it work for them and they become (or always were) poor.
Assuming for a moment that the laws of supply and demand still work then the assumption must be that there is an oversupply of certain inputs which drives down the price. So who in our society is poor... as a general and almost universal rule it is the unskilled and the uneducated.
So on to solutions, the most popular are to either “create” more jobs or upskill the unemployed. Neither of which will work. There are no more unskilled jobs to be “created” we don’t need them any more and any way how does this help presumably more low paid work doesn’t really assist with raising living standards. As to upskilling, well despite a bit of hand wringing every now and then there are very good opportunities for education in this country so that doesn’t appear to be working. It’s the “lead a horse to water” thing.
In normal economics if there is an oversupply of anything leading to a reduction in price then people stop producing that thing which brings the supply demand equation into balance. Think of farmers and crops, if the price of corn falls too low they switch to growing grain or whatever. So here is where it starts to get tricky the obvious conclusion must be that we need to limit the “supply” of the unskilled and uneducated and this means limiting the support we give to people to have children. (see told you its tricky, and yes I am not unaware of the issues that sort of statement will raise in peoples minds) Yet as a society we like children and we do lots to help and promote the idea of children, but in lots of ways it isn’t helping. Apart from unemployment and poverty exponential growth in the population isn’t exactly helping the planet either. Time for society to stop promoting children. Try winning an election with that as a policy.
Our City Council is desperate to have them removed and stop them from making the place untidy and has called on the police to “do their duty” and forcibly evict them. The police refused which made the Mayor very unhappy. Trouble is I find myself agreeing with the police. These people are being totally peaceful and very polite. They don’t shout and carry on, they don’t get in the faces of passersby no one is prevented from their lawful business and I suspect with Christmas approaching and their “campground” normally be used for various events they are more than likely to politely move out of the way for the event and move back once it is over. It’s actually hard to dislike people who are acting reasonably even if you don’t understand what it is they want. Live and let Die I have always said so why should they be “bullied” by the police.
The other level of success for the protesters is I have been paying more attention to the rich / poor divide and wondering what the solution to this is. The current political flavours don’t seem to work. On the right we have “every man for himself and work hard” On the left we have the equally silly “let’s all share everything evenly” Then we have the Green movement which seems to desire a great leap backwards to a non existent fairytale world of gentle farmers.
So articulating the problem is pretty easy, the economic cake is not shared evenly enough. We decide what share of the cake you should get by assigning value to the inputs you bring to the economic table be that labour, mental labour or capital. So based on that equation some peoples inputs are not valued at a high enough level to make it work for them and they become (or always were) poor.
Assuming for a moment that the laws of supply and demand still work then the assumption must be that there is an oversupply of certain inputs which drives down the price. So who in our society is poor... as a general and almost universal rule it is the unskilled and the uneducated.
So on to solutions, the most popular are to either “create” more jobs or upskill the unemployed. Neither of which will work. There are no more unskilled jobs to be “created” we don’t need them any more and any way how does this help presumably more low paid work doesn’t really assist with raising living standards. As to upskilling, well despite a bit of hand wringing every now and then there are very good opportunities for education in this country so that doesn’t appear to be working. It’s the “lead a horse to water” thing.
In normal economics if there is an oversupply of anything leading to a reduction in price then people stop producing that thing which brings the supply demand equation into balance. Think of farmers and crops, if the price of corn falls too low they switch to growing grain or whatever. So here is where it starts to get tricky the obvious conclusion must be that we need to limit the “supply” of the unskilled and uneducated and this means limiting the support we give to people to have children. (see told you its tricky, and yes I am not unaware of the issues that sort of statement will raise in peoples minds) Yet as a society we like children and we do lots to help and promote the idea of children, but in lots of ways it isn’t helping. Apart from unemployment and poverty exponential growth in the population isn’t exactly helping the planet either. Time for society to stop promoting children. Try winning an election with that as a policy.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Let them eat cake
This much repeated quote is attributed to Mary Antoinette and has passed into general language as a put down towards protesting mobs. Of course history shows that things didn’t work out very well for Mary ultimately losing her head to the French Revolution guillotine alongside her husband.
No expert in the area but my understanding is that the cause of the French Revolution was the widening gap between the rich and poor, with the breadless peasants vs the French Queen the ultimate example and hence the power of the supposed quote.
So as we know those that ignore history are destined to repeat it and while I think we are some distance away from the “peasants” taking over the streets they have made a start with the Occupy Wall Street protests which seem to have morphed into just Occupy.
We have our only local version here that are camping out in The Octagon, a central green space in the heart of the city and just outside the front door of the council offices. I was taken to task recently for referring to them as an “idiotic mob” with my critic pointing out that they were peaceful and well meaning with some valid points to make. So I would have to concede that what he said was true as far as it went but I still stand by my comment on the basis that these folk (the local version) are against a lot of stuff but “for” absolutely nothing (well for the environment, people first etc) but there is no how, what do they want to see done exactly? They have no answers to the problems they pose so they are just noise machines. I am against cancer but protesting on the streets won’t fix that either.
As to mob, well all of them as far as I can tell are living off “the state” or put another way the system they despise is allowing them the income to sit around protesting and because they don’t believe in central authority they are a group of individuals acting for the time being in concert, eg a mob, as opposed to a political party or movement.
But overlooking the short comings of the way they are going about it, there are certainly shades of the French Revolution in the current world wide unrest.
Locally there seems to be an increasing theme around the widening gap between rich and poor (so called as both terms are relative to the society within which you happen to be measuring) and there is no doubt that this is ultimately a bad thing for all. Problem is the solutions seem to be missing. On one side we have “trickle down” economics and on the other we have “wealth redistribution”, neither option really seems to deliver on its promise.
The other interesting plot line that is playing out is “do we care and should we care”. As I have mentioned before the idea that the poor should be anything but that is a reasonably recent idea and alongside that idea is “blame” for being poor. Once upon a time being poor was not your fault and you couldn’t change it. Both ideas are currently in question. Then we had the rise of social justice, “we should help people not be poor”, which is somewhat in conflict with the “they should help themselves” idea.
Once again the clash comes with a poorly defined statement of the problem, “no poor people” or “helping the disadvantaged” are very worthy ideas but what do they mean in practice. How do you define poor, a percentage of average income seems popular but obviously flawed. Helping often turns into dependency and is it even possible with 20 something percent youth unemployment at the moment, how exactly do you “help” these people into employment there are simply not the jobs... although perhaps the youth have the wrong skills... or too expensive to take on.... or not paid enough to attract them to work. Seems I don’t have the answers either so I am off to The Octagon with my tent.
No expert in the area but my understanding is that the cause of the French Revolution was the widening gap between the rich and poor, with the breadless peasants vs the French Queen the ultimate example and hence the power of the supposed quote.
So as we know those that ignore history are destined to repeat it and while I think we are some distance away from the “peasants” taking over the streets they have made a start with the Occupy Wall Street protests which seem to have morphed into just Occupy.
We have our only local version here that are camping out in The Octagon, a central green space in the heart of the city and just outside the front door of the council offices. I was taken to task recently for referring to them as an “idiotic mob” with my critic pointing out that they were peaceful and well meaning with some valid points to make. So I would have to concede that what he said was true as far as it went but I still stand by my comment on the basis that these folk (the local version) are against a lot of stuff but “for” absolutely nothing (well for the environment, people first etc) but there is no how, what do they want to see done exactly? They have no answers to the problems they pose so they are just noise machines. I am against cancer but protesting on the streets won’t fix that either.
As to mob, well all of them as far as I can tell are living off “the state” or put another way the system they despise is allowing them the income to sit around protesting and because they don’t believe in central authority they are a group of individuals acting for the time being in concert, eg a mob, as opposed to a political party or movement.
But overlooking the short comings of the way they are going about it, there are certainly shades of the French Revolution in the current world wide unrest.
Locally there seems to be an increasing theme around the widening gap between rich and poor (so called as both terms are relative to the society within which you happen to be measuring) and there is no doubt that this is ultimately a bad thing for all. Problem is the solutions seem to be missing. On one side we have “trickle down” economics and on the other we have “wealth redistribution”, neither option really seems to deliver on its promise.
The other interesting plot line that is playing out is “do we care and should we care”. As I have mentioned before the idea that the poor should be anything but that is a reasonably recent idea and alongside that idea is “blame” for being poor. Once upon a time being poor was not your fault and you couldn’t change it. Both ideas are currently in question. Then we had the rise of social justice, “we should help people not be poor”, which is somewhat in conflict with the “they should help themselves” idea.
Once again the clash comes with a poorly defined statement of the problem, “no poor people” or “helping the disadvantaged” are very worthy ideas but what do they mean in practice. How do you define poor, a percentage of average income seems popular but obviously flawed. Helping often turns into dependency and is it even possible with 20 something percent youth unemployment at the moment, how exactly do you “help” these people into employment there are simply not the jobs... although perhaps the youth have the wrong skills... or too expensive to take on.... or not paid enough to attract them to work. Seems I don’t have the answers either so I am off to The Octagon with my tent.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
William Webb Ellis
So Mr Ellis lived from 1806-1872 and were it not for his “invention” of Rubgy was unlikely to have been one of history’s stars. The idea that he invented Rubgy by picking up the ball and running with it during a football match doesn’t seem very likely but none the less this myth is strong enough for the Rugby World Cup trophy to carry his name.
At the moment with NZ hosting this competition and the general religious zeal with which some Kiwis treat rugby it seems as if the future of the nation hangs on one last game in the finals when the All Blacks play France. The AB’s bogie team at world cups just to add some interest to the match.
This cultural phenomenon where the emotional wellbeing of the nation in some part hangs on the performance of roughly thirty men (the total squad size) playing a game of rugby is rather intriguing, for a start how did rugby come to have such a dominant position as the sport of choice of so many Kiwis.
In the majority of the world Rugby is an elite sport played most often at private schools as a sweeping generalisation only in NZ is it the game of the masses. Most other countries have soccer in that position and in the country of origin of so many Kiwis when it was first settled, England, this is certainly so.
So presumably I can deduce that NZ was settled by the upper classes who brought with them a love of Rugby and the poor working classes that followed went along with this and abandoned soccer when they saw what their betters had to offer in the new country......Hmmm doesn’t seem that likely and even less so when you sprinkle in some facts for example it was the working classes who settled the land and given that life was quite comfy in London for the rich I can’t see hordes of them volunteering to come out to a land “lacking in culture and refinement”.
So why is soccer not our dominant sport? Well it seems to be down to the efforts of one Charles Munro who learned the game while being educated in England, presumably in one of those private schools. Upon his return to Nelson he established a team at Nelson College, but who did they play is the key they played the Nelson Football club (i.e. the soccer boys) and this set a pattern that was to be repeated as the energetic Mr Munro established the game in Wellington and then organised tours of the country. Every where the team went it played the lads from the local soccer club as presumably they were the only easily contacted local sports teams who could organise 15 lads for a game. Clearly some of the clubs enjoyed their rugby outing and presumably switched codes, in fact quite a number must of because the game took off quite quickly and was a sporting force in the country within 10 years of Mr Munro’s return from England.
So well done Mr Munro for setting in place a cultural icon of NZ for at least the next 150 years (I think there are threats to rugby’s current status but only time will tell.) This idea that an individual who is not a recognised leader can influence the culture of a nation is intriguing but when you think about it a bit more this must always have been the case.
For example the Japanese interest in achieving perfection in what they are doing has always fascinated, I mean to become a sushi chef can involve up to 10 years training and the first three are cooking rice only. To western eyes taking 3 years to learn to boil rice seems a bit over the top but that is Japan for you. This is one example of their approach, so how did this get started? Well presumably it must have been one person and others must have said you know what Fujita is on to something there and followed.
The other question that arises is some cultures have traits that we don’t always admire, so how did that get going? Why would we copy a loud mouth to the extent that it became part of a national identity?
Back to the power of one, looks like a good example could still change the world or at least your part of it which might spread, just like Charles Munro and his love of rugby. So pick your desired cultural norm and practice what you preach you never know what might happen.
At the moment with NZ hosting this competition and the general religious zeal with which some Kiwis treat rugby it seems as if the future of the nation hangs on one last game in the finals when the All Blacks play France. The AB’s bogie team at world cups just to add some interest to the match.
This cultural phenomenon where the emotional wellbeing of the nation in some part hangs on the performance of roughly thirty men (the total squad size) playing a game of rugby is rather intriguing, for a start how did rugby come to have such a dominant position as the sport of choice of so many Kiwis.
In the majority of the world Rugby is an elite sport played most often at private schools as a sweeping generalisation only in NZ is it the game of the masses. Most other countries have soccer in that position and in the country of origin of so many Kiwis when it was first settled, England, this is certainly so.
So presumably I can deduce that NZ was settled by the upper classes who brought with them a love of Rugby and the poor working classes that followed went along with this and abandoned soccer when they saw what their betters had to offer in the new country......Hmmm doesn’t seem that likely and even less so when you sprinkle in some facts for example it was the working classes who settled the land and given that life was quite comfy in London for the rich I can’t see hordes of them volunteering to come out to a land “lacking in culture and refinement”.
So why is soccer not our dominant sport? Well it seems to be down to the efforts of one Charles Munro who learned the game while being educated in England, presumably in one of those private schools. Upon his return to Nelson he established a team at Nelson College, but who did they play is the key they played the Nelson Football club (i.e. the soccer boys) and this set a pattern that was to be repeated as the energetic Mr Munro established the game in Wellington and then organised tours of the country. Every where the team went it played the lads from the local soccer club as presumably they were the only easily contacted local sports teams who could organise 15 lads for a game. Clearly some of the clubs enjoyed their rugby outing and presumably switched codes, in fact quite a number must of because the game took off quite quickly and was a sporting force in the country within 10 years of Mr Munro’s return from England.
So well done Mr Munro for setting in place a cultural icon of NZ for at least the next 150 years (I think there are threats to rugby’s current status but only time will tell.) This idea that an individual who is not a recognised leader can influence the culture of a nation is intriguing but when you think about it a bit more this must always have been the case.
For example the Japanese interest in achieving perfection in what they are doing has always fascinated, I mean to become a sushi chef can involve up to 10 years training and the first three are cooking rice only. To western eyes taking 3 years to learn to boil rice seems a bit over the top but that is Japan for you. This is one example of their approach, so how did this get started? Well presumably it must have been one person and others must have said you know what Fujita is on to something there and followed.
The other question that arises is some cultures have traits that we don’t always admire, so how did that get going? Why would we copy a loud mouth to the extent that it became part of a national identity?
Back to the power of one, looks like a good example could still change the world or at least your part of it which might spread, just like Charles Munro and his love of rugby. So pick your desired cultural norm and practice what you preach you never know what might happen.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Pick Me..
It is election time here in three months and the billboards and campaigning have already started. I spotted a Labour Party billboard at the weekend which beside the shining face of the candidate had “Vote Labour” (naturally) “Minimum Wage $15” (For anyone who is interested this is an increase from $13) So I have rubbished the idea of a legislated minimum wage before and if this was the answer to a low wage economy why don’t they suggest $25 or $45 an hour? Any way the over arching thought I had was that this sort of blatant electioneering nonsense is what needs legislative change. Therefore here is my answer to a change of governance structure.
Firstly as a society we have limited difficulty coming up with collective desired outcomes or “policy” if you will where the debate starts is the best way about achieving the required outcome. The increase in the minimum wage is an example the policy requirement is a liveable wage for all employed persons. Just about everyone will agree that sounds ok (I am going to walk past the definitional issues for the moment) It is the how we get there where it all goes wrong. In this instance the best people to answer this question are probably economic researchers and potential social analysts. Not well meaning, slogan wielding, power hungry, ego driven, vested interest politicians. (some or all of the list normally applies to all of them)
So first it is clear that we need to arms of governance, we need the policy arm and the implementation arm. The Policy arm, let’s call that the Peoples Parliament (PP) would have the same elections, party politics etc that we know and love now but no power to pass any legislation, only the power to pass Policy in the form of Legislative Requirements. These Requirements would be passed to the Governing Parliament (GP) for implementation.
The GP would propose the method for enacting the Policy and design the legislation to give effect to the Policy, this would be referred back to the PP Passing into Law or Veto. If they Vetoed they could offer comment of course but there would be no requirement on the GP to do anything further. The PP would have no right to alter the legislation.
Contained within the GP would be the Prime Minister character and Ministers as we know them now and the various Department Heads would answer to this group.
So the obvious question how do you get into the GP? Answer the PM would be appointed by an Electoral College and they (the PM) in turn would appoint Ministers. The PP would have the power of Veto over any given Ministerial Appointment but not the PM.
Who is this mysterious Electoral College? These would be people elected by the citizens to appoint the PM and after they had completed this task they would go into recess only to reappear between elections if the PM needed removed for some reason (governed by a constitution). To be able to stand for the Electoral College you would have to have no political affiliations, have a suitable level of education and passed a simple test on the constitution. Anyone could stand for Electoral College if they qualified.
What’s the point? Well that way hopefully we get a legislative and implementation arm of government less effected by political influence (no one is totally unaffected but hopefully better than now). You get people in the GP who are suitably qualified for the roles they hold without having to pander to vested interest groups etc.
This is unashamedly designed to put a buffer between the masses and the leadership of the country, hopefully allowing a rational consideration of the facts to dictate government decisions in pursuit of an agreed vision provided by the people.
The opportunity for such a radical experiment seems remote but that’s my idea for what its worth.
Firstly as a society we have limited difficulty coming up with collective desired outcomes or “policy” if you will where the debate starts is the best way about achieving the required outcome. The increase in the minimum wage is an example the policy requirement is a liveable wage for all employed persons. Just about everyone will agree that sounds ok (I am going to walk past the definitional issues for the moment) It is the how we get there where it all goes wrong. In this instance the best people to answer this question are probably economic researchers and potential social analysts. Not well meaning, slogan wielding, power hungry, ego driven, vested interest politicians. (some or all of the list normally applies to all of them)
So first it is clear that we need to arms of governance, we need the policy arm and the implementation arm. The Policy arm, let’s call that the Peoples Parliament (PP) would have the same elections, party politics etc that we know and love now but no power to pass any legislation, only the power to pass Policy in the form of Legislative Requirements. These Requirements would be passed to the Governing Parliament (GP) for implementation.
The GP would propose the method for enacting the Policy and design the legislation to give effect to the Policy, this would be referred back to the PP Passing into Law or Veto. If they Vetoed they could offer comment of course but there would be no requirement on the GP to do anything further. The PP would have no right to alter the legislation.
Contained within the GP would be the Prime Minister character and Ministers as we know them now and the various Department Heads would answer to this group.
So the obvious question how do you get into the GP? Answer the PM would be appointed by an Electoral College and they (the PM) in turn would appoint Ministers. The PP would have the power of Veto over any given Ministerial Appointment but not the PM.
Who is this mysterious Electoral College? These would be people elected by the citizens to appoint the PM and after they had completed this task they would go into recess only to reappear between elections if the PM needed removed for some reason (governed by a constitution). To be able to stand for the Electoral College you would have to have no political affiliations, have a suitable level of education and passed a simple test on the constitution. Anyone could stand for Electoral College if they qualified.
What’s the point? Well that way hopefully we get a legislative and implementation arm of government less effected by political influence (no one is totally unaffected but hopefully better than now). You get people in the GP who are suitably qualified for the roles they hold without having to pander to vested interest groups etc.
This is unashamedly designed to put a buffer between the masses and the leadership of the country, hopefully allowing a rational consideration of the facts to dictate government decisions in pursuit of an agreed vision provided by the people.
The opportunity for such a radical experiment seems remote but that’s my idea for what its worth.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
The LHC and Me
So the LHC is The Large Hadron Collider which most of us will have heard about (http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/lhc-interesting-facts.htm) It is part of scientists ongoing quest to find a unifying theory for the various forces they observe in the universe. It is a massive undertaking in terms of size, money and time and of uncertain benefit in terms of putting food into the mouths of the hungry etc and the inevitable question will be why bother? The simple answer is “because you don’t know what you don’t know” Sticking with what you know only gets you what you already have.
However this is not in support of The LHC (it is big enough to look after itself) but an observation on a desire to have a unifying theory in the first place. As humans we seem to prefer this approach and have great difficulty dealing with messy unpredictable things. I presume it goes back to the way our brains work where to avoid information overload we just focus on difference and ignore the standard things. This gives us a lot less information to process and is why something new in your living space keeps catching your attention for a while till your brain categories it as “standard”. Or why travelling is so tiring, because there is no standard so your brain is on alert the whole time.
Recently Fruitcake at http://scuzei.blogspot.com commented on what she thought was my world view through the lens of these posts. This surprised me at a number of levels but the big challenge to me was that I could be categorised into a single box which is not how I saw myself. This of course posed the question what was my world view or the lens that I applied to the challenges I see around me. Am I a conservative or a liberal what level of state intervention am I comfortable with in my life, do I believe in private charity or social welfare, am I a social Darwinist as Dina suggested once (I denied that one).
When I came to try and categorise myself I didn’t find a unifying theory unless you consider evidence driven pragmatism a unifying theory but there is no real hint of what my view might be on any given subject contained in that phrase.
There are two parts to this though. My thought process tends to be given a desired outcome of X what do we need to do to achieve this. So the evidence driven pragmatism is easy for the “what do we need to do” bit although I am constantly surprised that the choices people make do not follow this. The harder part is agreeing what the desired outcome is. To that end I guess I am a Utilitarian – The greatest good for the greatest number. This seems the only sensible position to adopt for a society, however we also have the Tyranny of the Majority to look out for. Eg taking “white” farms and giving them to “black” farmers in Zimbabwe might pass the greatest good test but seems inappropriate from other stand points.
So just like the scientists I seem destined to keep searching for a unifying theory for my points of view. I am comforted that for the last hundred years or so (the period of the surge in scientific endeavour) Science has happily operated with no unifying theory and it hasn’t stopped them making significant progress in the various scientific disciplines along the way. They also remain open to the idea of sharing information and adopting learning’s in one area to inform seemingly unrelated areas.
So while searching for the perfect unifying theory of everything in the world let’s remember that you political opponent may sometimes have a better answer than you in some areas. Of course this isn’t always true a political party of many years ago now since gone from the local political landscape called Values was the butt of a bumper sticker joke that said “I am voting Values cause I’m pissed” this pretty much summed up the worth of their policies. A bit like these guys but less fun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party
However this is not in support of The LHC (it is big enough to look after itself) but an observation on a desire to have a unifying theory in the first place. As humans we seem to prefer this approach and have great difficulty dealing with messy unpredictable things. I presume it goes back to the way our brains work where to avoid information overload we just focus on difference and ignore the standard things. This gives us a lot less information to process and is why something new in your living space keeps catching your attention for a while till your brain categories it as “standard”. Or why travelling is so tiring, because there is no standard so your brain is on alert the whole time.
Recently Fruitcake at http://scuzei.blogspot.com commented on what she thought was my world view through the lens of these posts. This surprised me at a number of levels but the big challenge to me was that I could be categorised into a single box which is not how I saw myself. This of course posed the question what was my world view or the lens that I applied to the challenges I see around me. Am I a conservative or a liberal what level of state intervention am I comfortable with in my life, do I believe in private charity or social welfare, am I a social Darwinist as Dina suggested once (I denied that one).
When I came to try and categorise myself I didn’t find a unifying theory unless you consider evidence driven pragmatism a unifying theory but there is no real hint of what my view might be on any given subject contained in that phrase.
There are two parts to this though. My thought process tends to be given a desired outcome of X what do we need to do to achieve this. So the evidence driven pragmatism is easy for the “what do we need to do” bit although I am constantly surprised that the choices people make do not follow this. The harder part is agreeing what the desired outcome is. To that end I guess I am a Utilitarian – The greatest good for the greatest number. This seems the only sensible position to adopt for a society, however we also have the Tyranny of the Majority to look out for. Eg taking “white” farms and giving them to “black” farmers in Zimbabwe might pass the greatest good test but seems inappropriate from other stand points.
So just like the scientists I seem destined to keep searching for a unifying theory for my points of view. I am comforted that for the last hundred years or so (the period of the surge in scientific endeavour) Science has happily operated with no unifying theory and it hasn’t stopped them making significant progress in the various scientific disciplines along the way. They also remain open to the idea of sharing information and adopting learning’s in one area to inform seemingly unrelated areas.
So while searching for the perfect unifying theory of everything in the world let’s remember that you political opponent may sometimes have a better answer than you in some areas. Of course this isn’t always true a political party of many years ago now since gone from the local political landscape called Values was the butt of a bumper sticker joke that said “I am voting Values cause I’m pissed” this pretty much summed up the worth of their policies. A bit like these guys but less fun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
History never repeats..
So say Split Enz a 1980’s band in a minor hit of theirs This group contained the Finn brothers who more famously turned up later as Crowded House, but enough musical history and the dubious wisdom of pop songs. I am more taken by the line “those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it” an observation I believe was originally made by Edmund Burke but more famously attributed to Winston Churchill more often than not.
If we are to accept the quote then in the context of war there are a lot of people not paying attention as it keeps repeating over and over. Is it simply in the nature of humanity to go to war. Can we never learn to control this presumably powerful instinct?
This thought thread was sparked by the current hand wringing going on over 9/11 and of course the “war on terror” that resulted in the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Which lead to thinking about the nature of war more generally.
So my neighbour rang me a while back and asked me in a roundabout way to cut down a tree that is at the bottom of my garden because it blocked his sun and made his house colder. I don’t want to cut down the tree as rather than a view of a mature tree I will have a view of his house. This may seem unreasonable my view versus his comfort but the house was built there years after the tree was fully mature so the lack of sun due to the tree shouldn’t come as a surprise to him. I am therefore not inclined to correct his folly by transferring his pain to me. Any way that is not the point so to wrap this point up the law is on my side (right of wrong). After chatting around the thing for a while he said “you are not being helpful, can’t we come to a compromise” to which I replied that if he could explain the compromise position between chop down and not chop down I would listen. (pruning wouldn’t change anything it is a big tree) The point being some problems just don’t have compromise outcomes some of them have a winner (so to speak) and a loser. So what now for my neighbour having encountered my unreasonable intransigence? (from his point of view).
Well because he is a civilised individual (albeit grumpy with me potentially) he accepted the position but he could have “gone to war” with me by executing a commando raid in the dead of night over the fence and poisoned the tree. (he wouldn’t be the first) and I could have retaliated by shooting him in the head. (ok that would be a bit extreme but you get the point)
Effectively we had a competition for resources (he wanted the sunshine that my tree was using) and I didn’t want to share because in this instance we couldn’t. So the end of war would seem to be an acceptance that the status quo is acceptable and no one will do anything to alter that state without the express agreement of the other parties that might be affected. That is how our mini battle did not escalate to war.
So how likely is it that there will never be an “uncivilised” neighbour in the world who will not resort to force to get what they want. Well if you continue with my example then presumably when we all feel we have an appropriate share of the available resources.
If I could have cut the tree in half vertically that might have been a compromise, it just doesn’t work with trees. But trees aren’t what we have real wars about are they, it does tend to be resources that we could deal with differently. Contented people seldom go to war only the disenfranchised.
Lest anyone make the mistake that this is a call to socialism, it isn’t, I used the term appropriate not equal or desired share of resources. So it is back to the debate about how we allocate resources appropriately and ensure people understand and accept that this is so.
For example most people are happy that doctors get paid more than labourers. They can see that it takes a lot more training for one thing to become doctor so we have an unequal share of economic resources but an understanding of why this is so. So when I am driving my Toyota and my doctor is driving his BMW I don’t really feel bad as I understand and accept that. When my banker is driving a Ferrari because... well because I don’t feel so good and potentially have a desire to "deal" with my bankers excessive consumption presumably at my expense, look out I see the potential for "war"
If we are to accept the quote then in the context of war there are a lot of people not paying attention as it keeps repeating over and over. Is it simply in the nature of humanity to go to war. Can we never learn to control this presumably powerful instinct?
This thought thread was sparked by the current hand wringing going on over 9/11 and of course the “war on terror” that resulted in the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Which lead to thinking about the nature of war more generally.
So my neighbour rang me a while back and asked me in a roundabout way to cut down a tree that is at the bottom of my garden because it blocked his sun and made his house colder. I don’t want to cut down the tree as rather than a view of a mature tree I will have a view of his house. This may seem unreasonable my view versus his comfort but the house was built there years after the tree was fully mature so the lack of sun due to the tree shouldn’t come as a surprise to him. I am therefore not inclined to correct his folly by transferring his pain to me. Any way that is not the point so to wrap this point up the law is on my side (right of wrong). After chatting around the thing for a while he said “you are not being helpful, can’t we come to a compromise” to which I replied that if he could explain the compromise position between chop down and not chop down I would listen. (pruning wouldn’t change anything it is a big tree) The point being some problems just don’t have compromise outcomes some of them have a winner (so to speak) and a loser. So what now for my neighbour having encountered my unreasonable intransigence? (from his point of view).
Well because he is a civilised individual (albeit grumpy with me potentially) he accepted the position but he could have “gone to war” with me by executing a commando raid in the dead of night over the fence and poisoned the tree. (he wouldn’t be the first) and I could have retaliated by shooting him in the head. (ok that would be a bit extreme but you get the point)
Effectively we had a competition for resources (he wanted the sunshine that my tree was using) and I didn’t want to share because in this instance we couldn’t. So the end of war would seem to be an acceptance that the status quo is acceptable and no one will do anything to alter that state without the express agreement of the other parties that might be affected. That is how our mini battle did not escalate to war.
So how likely is it that there will never be an “uncivilised” neighbour in the world who will not resort to force to get what they want. Well if you continue with my example then presumably when we all feel we have an appropriate share of the available resources.
If I could have cut the tree in half vertically that might have been a compromise, it just doesn’t work with trees. But trees aren’t what we have real wars about are they, it does tend to be resources that we could deal with differently. Contented people seldom go to war only the disenfranchised.
Lest anyone make the mistake that this is a call to socialism, it isn’t, I used the term appropriate not equal or desired share of resources. So it is back to the debate about how we allocate resources appropriately and ensure people understand and accept that this is so.
For example most people are happy that doctors get paid more than labourers. They can see that it takes a lot more training for one thing to become doctor so we have an unequal share of economic resources but an understanding of why this is so. So when I am driving my Toyota and my doctor is driving his BMW I don’t really feel bad as I understand and accept that. When my banker is driving a Ferrari because... well because I don’t feel so good and potentially have a desire to "deal" with my bankers excessive consumption presumably at my expense, look out I see the potential for "war"
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Till divorce do us part
Sometimes it seems that topics develop a level of popularity all by themselves. On this occasion I seem to be encountering a lot of references to gay marriage a topic which frankly I haven’t given much thought to because a) I am not gay and b) I am already married. I think the confluence of unrelated but similar items is called synchronicity which is mostly irrelevant but a cool word to try and drop into your next cocktail party.
So back to gay marriage, other than the reasons above I have a sort of “so what” attitude to this, if gay people want to be married good luck to them on the other hand why all the fuss as far as I can tell my status us married does not provide me any privileges or rights that I wouldn’t otherwise have so who cares.
Administratively it is sometimes easier to be married, my wife automatically becomes my spokesperson etc for medical stuff if I can’t speak for myself (which may be a very bad thing depending on how recently I came home late or did something else irresponsible) and gets the house when I die etc but all of this can be overcome with some legal papers albeit I admit it might be more of a hassle and the items on the list are relatively minor in the scheme of life.
So I realize that some of the fuss derives from the fact that gay marriage is not recognized by some governments and people want this “put right”. So this begs the question why would a government care and actually when you think about it why are they involved at all? Why do you need a marriage license? Actually why do people including myself even get married?
Errr, In my case because that’s what you do? Looking back that is really my own personal answer, there was presumably a lot of symbolism in the starting a new life together type stuff and I never thought about it at the time but it is really the creating of a new family unit isn’t it. Separate and with its own identity from the families the two of you have come from and by extension the beginning of the child bearing and raising process that completes the cycle. So it is not to suggest I fell into marriage but it wasn’t motivated by trying to be involved in any grand societal plan. And the getting married bit is quite distinct in my mind from the life I have now built with my wife. If I were to have my time again would I bother to get married, actually maybe not, I would have a party but the license and stuff perhaps not.
Presumably then society (the government) cares because the family part is the key a mummy and a daddy in a stable family unit are the best space to raise a child. Well let’s quickly admit that there are other models that work just fine to name just one would be what I will call a village model where the whole tribe is responsible and this seems to work very well. Equally we will all readily admit that there are some appalling mummy and daddy units out there.
So presumably governments think that gay people would make bad parents hence a dislike of gay marriage. Certainly biology is on the side of the government, producing babies is quite a bit harder if you and your partner share the same gender. So that should be an A ha! moment for the government, exactly how big a problem can this ever be given the built in limitations? And as for those gay people who seek to adopt etc, these are what I would call deliberate parents as they have to consider plan and actively seek parenthood versus the many, many accidental parents in the non gay world. How many time have you heard someone say “little Johnny was a bit of an accident” or some such. (as an aside I feel like slapping these people, how would you like your existence being referred to as an accident) So what would you prefer people who want to be parents or people who got drunk and ended up with a baby. (yes yes rash sterotyping but you understand what I mean)
Once again this seems to me to be an area that governments are in for the “doing good” reasons and it has the inevitable consequence of interfering in people’s lives for no supportable reason. With 30% of marriages ending in miserable divorce and potentially a higher level of unhappy marriage if governments want to do good they should ban marriage altogether I don’t see why gay people deserve special protection from that sort of self inflicted misery it is just another example of discrimination against us poor middle class white fellas.
So back to gay marriage, other than the reasons above I have a sort of “so what” attitude to this, if gay people want to be married good luck to them on the other hand why all the fuss as far as I can tell my status us married does not provide me any privileges or rights that I wouldn’t otherwise have so who cares.
Administratively it is sometimes easier to be married, my wife automatically becomes my spokesperson etc for medical stuff if I can’t speak for myself (which may be a very bad thing depending on how recently I came home late or did something else irresponsible) and gets the house when I die etc but all of this can be overcome with some legal papers albeit I admit it might be more of a hassle and the items on the list are relatively minor in the scheme of life.
So I realize that some of the fuss derives from the fact that gay marriage is not recognized by some governments and people want this “put right”. So this begs the question why would a government care and actually when you think about it why are they involved at all? Why do you need a marriage license? Actually why do people including myself even get married?
Errr, In my case because that’s what you do? Looking back that is really my own personal answer, there was presumably a lot of symbolism in the starting a new life together type stuff and I never thought about it at the time but it is really the creating of a new family unit isn’t it. Separate and with its own identity from the families the two of you have come from and by extension the beginning of the child bearing and raising process that completes the cycle. So it is not to suggest I fell into marriage but it wasn’t motivated by trying to be involved in any grand societal plan. And the getting married bit is quite distinct in my mind from the life I have now built with my wife. If I were to have my time again would I bother to get married, actually maybe not, I would have a party but the license and stuff perhaps not.
Presumably then society (the government) cares because the family part is the key a mummy and a daddy in a stable family unit are the best space to raise a child. Well let’s quickly admit that there are other models that work just fine to name just one would be what I will call a village model where the whole tribe is responsible and this seems to work very well. Equally we will all readily admit that there are some appalling mummy and daddy units out there.
So presumably governments think that gay people would make bad parents hence a dislike of gay marriage. Certainly biology is on the side of the government, producing babies is quite a bit harder if you and your partner share the same gender. So that should be an A ha! moment for the government, exactly how big a problem can this ever be given the built in limitations? And as for those gay people who seek to adopt etc, these are what I would call deliberate parents as they have to consider plan and actively seek parenthood versus the many, many accidental parents in the non gay world. How many time have you heard someone say “little Johnny was a bit of an accident” or some such. (as an aside I feel like slapping these people, how would you like your existence being referred to as an accident) So what would you prefer people who want to be parents or people who got drunk and ended up with a baby. (yes yes rash sterotyping but you understand what I mean)
Once again this seems to me to be an area that governments are in for the “doing good” reasons and it has the inevitable consequence of interfering in people’s lives for no supportable reason. With 30% of marriages ending in miserable divorce and potentially a higher level of unhappy marriage if governments want to do good they should ban marriage altogether I don’t see why gay people deserve special protection from that sort of self inflicted misery it is just another example of discrimination against us poor middle class white fellas.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Decisions, Decisions
More government vs less government for some reason this seems to have become a left right battle and it is not obvious to me why this should be so.
Potentially it seems to me to depend on your ideas on the role of government so I thought I would advance an answer which may or may not be the standard answer for I don’t know of a consensus on this point.
For me the government is there to provide the goods and services I would not be able to provide for myself, either through my own efforts or via purchase from other providers.
Obvious examples are the court system and defence forces. Roads are another example of something it is almost impossible to provide for yourself and while there are example of privately owned toll roads in reality these are just adjuncts to the main network provided by the government. Toll roads that went from your house to all of your friends houses would be a difficult ask for a private organisation.
There are other things that governments provide that are up for debate, an obvious an often debated one is health care. Through the world we have examples of an almost totally government funded and supplied health system such as NZ or the UK or essentially private only provision such as the USA and many hybrid versions in between. So the role of government in this is up for grabs.
Education is another issue where it is clearly possible for people to arrange for themselves and many do but in almost all jurisdictions especially the base level education of the young always falls to the state. This mostly seems to be part of a social contract whereby the state has deemed some level of compulsion into education and in return has provided the means of affecting this compulsion. Why this should be so for general education is not obvious as for example it is also compulsory for you to obtain a driving licence but governments do not seem inclined to hand out free driving lessons to enable you to reach the required standard.
The education anomaly seems to be government indulging in social engineering, e.g. the notion that governments have a role in promoting a “good” society for us all to live in and without exception a better educated populace results in a more harmonious society. But this is a very slippery slope as once you start telling people how to live their lives it is very hard to stop.
For example the NZ government along with others around the world has decided that smoking is bad and are doing their best to wipe out this habit with restrictions on advertising, the places you can smoke etc. Now I don’t smoke so I guess I should care less but on the other hand what business is it of the state if you smoke?
The much trotted out line is that the societal health costs burden outweighs your right to smoke. (a greater good for the greatest number argument) This is of course complete rubbish as the solution to this (assuming it is correct and I have my doubts about the maths, I mean what about the significant savings in superannuation payments as an offset) is to raise the tax on tobacco until it equals the costs, not run advertising campaigns trying to persuade people to quit or put gruesome pictures on the packets for the same reason.
Another example is superannuation, it is pretty clear I can save for myself so why do I need the government doing it for me?
When you look at a lot of examples of government, they fall into the “good” society category rather than my original definition and this where the big versus small comes in.
If you believe in my definition of government then it would tend to a smaller government, if you prefer the “good” society idea then I suspect it will be bigger. There are lots of reasons advanced for various policies but a lot of them are just meddling in peoples right to choose in the belief that it will make for a “better” society.
Potentially it seems to me to depend on your ideas on the role of government so I thought I would advance an answer which may or may not be the standard answer for I don’t know of a consensus on this point.
For me the government is there to provide the goods and services I would not be able to provide for myself, either through my own efforts or via purchase from other providers.
Obvious examples are the court system and defence forces. Roads are another example of something it is almost impossible to provide for yourself and while there are example of privately owned toll roads in reality these are just adjuncts to the main network provided by the government. Toll roads that went from your house to all of your friends houses would be a difficult ask for a private organisation.
There are other things that governments provide that are up for debate, an obvious an often debated one is health care. Through the world we have examples of an almost totally government funded and supplied health system such as NZ or the UK or essentially private only provision such as the USA and many hybrid versions in between. So the role of government in this is up for grabs.
Education is another issue where it is clearly possible for people to arrange for themselves and many do but in almost all jurisdictions especially the base level education of the young always falls to the state. This mostly seems to be part of a social contract whereby the state has deemed some level of compulsion into education and in return has provided the means of affecting this compulsion. Why this should be so for general education is not obvious as for example it is also compulsory for you to obtain a driving licence but governments do not seem inclined to hand out free driving lessons to enable you to reach the required standard.
The education anomaly seems to be government indulging in social engineering, e.g. the notion that governments have a role in promoting a “good” society for us all to live in and without exception a better educated populace results in a more harmonious society. But this is a very slippery slope as once you start telling people how to live their lives it is very hard to stop.
For example the NZ government along with others around the world has decided that smoking is bad and are doing their best to wipe out this habit with restrictions on advertising, the places you can smoke etc. Now I don’t smoke so I guess I should care less but on the other hand what business is it of the state if you smoke?
The much trotted out line is that the societal health costs burden outweighs your right to smoke. (a greater good for the greatest number argument) This is of course complete rubbish as the solution to this (assuming it is correct and I have my doubts about the maths, I mean what about the significant savings in superannuation payments as an offset) is to raise the tax on tobacco until it equals the costs, not run advertising campaigns trying to persuade people to quit or put gruesome pictures on the packets for the same reason.
Another example is superannuation, it is pretty clear I can save for myself so why do I need the government doing it for me?
When you look at a lot of examples of government, they fall into the “good” society category rather than my original definition and this where the big versus small comes in.
If you believe in my definition of government then it would tend to a smaller government, if you prefer the “good” society idea then I suspect it will be bigger. There are lots of reasons advanced for various policies but a lot of them are just meddling in peoples right to choose in the belief that it will make for a “better” society.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Silver Lining?
There has been a recent flurry in the media about the wisdom or otherwise of reporting the details of suicides or even reporting the deaths as suicides. As a proponent of an educated populace I can’t see the retention of information as a good thing without a greater good at play. Given that the research on the greater good (i.e. non reporting prevents further suicide) doesn’t seem compelling then I would probably a adopt a more liberal stance than the current environment of pretty much non reporting.
But that was not the most fascinating thing that I read on this topic. The most interesting piece of information was that after the recent Earthquakes in Christchurch suicides in that area ceased. Now if this was just a Christchurch phenomenon then it would be a great question for trival pursuit but that would be about it. But no apparently this phenomenon has been observed before in other disaster zones. So there appears to be a link between community tragedy mitigating personal tragedy.
The working hypothesis is that in a disaster zone everyone starts to help one another against the immediate problems that community faces and the sense of worthless isolation that a lot of suicide victims face goes away for a time. They become valued members of the community with a purpose.
Doesn’t that sound a bit tragic to you? It certainly does to me that such little gestures can eliminate suicide. And they were little, I wasn’t there but as far as I could tell most people’s contribution was to make sure their neighbours were all right, share the gas fired BBQ with folks who’s power was out etc and shovel endless amounts of liquefaction out of sections and footpaths etc. I am not attempting to undermine a difficult time for these folks but very few were called upon to take heroic actions they basically were just required to be interested in their fellow man and women which they gladly were.
Most people are ignorant of the toll of suicide so to put it in perspective in NZ it is about the same as our road toll, two thirds male and mostly young people (under 30) as a very broad brush picture. I suspect that this is similar in most OECD countries with some a bit worse and some better. And for every death there is the inevitable people left behind some of who are permanently damaged by the event and self guilt in particular. Suicides are often linked to drugs and alcohol as well. Sounds very much like the road toll to me.
For the road toll we have a dedicated police force, legislated technology checks (WOF), billions spent on road “black spots” advertising campaigns etc. And for suicide we do have some programs in place and a lot of money is spent on mental health (the health area that suicide crops up in). But to cure it all we apparently have to do is be nice to our neighbours and make sure they are ok, or so it seems from the disaster example.
So there are suicide “victims” who exercise informed free will to end their lives for whatever reason and I don’t think we should be trying to prevent or “cure” these people but for a number of others and I am prepared to suggest the majority it is a very permanent solution to some short term problems.
Sadly Christchurch’s statistics are returning to the pre quake levels as presumably the city returns to some form of normal. Apart from the opportunity to build a truly stunning new city a lack of suicide is another outcome from the quake I am sure they would be happy to hang onto.
But that was not the most fascinating thing that I read on this topic. The most interesting piece of information was that after the recent Earthquakes in Christchurch suicides in that area ceased. Now if this was just a Christchurch phenomenon then it would be a great question for trival pursuit but that would be about it. But no apparently this phenomenon has been observed before in other disaster zones. So there appears to be a link between community tragedy mitigating personal tragedy.
The working hypothesis is that in a disaster zone everyone starts to help one another against the immediate problems that community faces and the sense of worthless isolation that a lot of suicide victims face goes away for a time. They become valued members of the community with a purpose.
Doesn’t that sound a bit tragic to you? It certainly does to me that such little gestures can eliminate suicide. And they were little, I wasn’t there but as far as I could tell most people’s contribution was to make sure their neighbours were all right, share the gas fired BBQ with folks who’s power was out etc and shovel endless amounts of liquefaction out of sections and footpaths etc. I am not attempting to undermine a difficult time for these folks but very few were called upon to take heroic actions they basically were just required to be interested in their fellow man and women which they gladly were.
Most people are ignorant of the toll of suicide so to put it in perspective in NZ it is about the same as our road toll, two thirds male and mostly young people (under 30) as a very broad brush picture. I suspect that this is similar in most OECD countries with some a bit worse and some better. And for every death there is the inevitable people left behind some of who are permanently damaged by the event and self guilt in particular. Suicides are often linked to drugs and alcohol as well. Sounds very much like the road toll to me.
For the road toll we have a dedicated police force, legislated technology checks (WOF), billions spent on road “black spots” advertising campaigns etc. And for suicide we do have some programs in place and a lot of money is spent on mental health (the health area that suicide crops up in). But to cure it all we apparently have to do is be nice to our neighbours and make sure they are ok, or so it seems from the disaster example.
So there are suicide “victims” who exercise informed free will to end their lives for whatever reason and I don’t think we should be trying to prevent or “cure” these people but for a number of others and I am prepared to suggest the majority it is a very permanent solution to some short term problems.
Sadly Christchurch’s statistics are returning to the pre quake levels as presumably the city returns to some form of normal. Apart from the opportunity to build a truly stunning new city a lack of suicide is another outcome from the quake I am sure they would be happy to hang onto.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Genes or Jeans maketh the man
I have spotted another sign of aging, the people in adverts no longer look like me. OK to be fair I never really looked like the body perfect models who show up in adverts but at least at one point I was the same general age of these people. Now that I am no longer 20 (or 30) something I am definitely not advert material unless potentially we were talking about Regaine or some other “mature focused” products, most of which are a lot less flattering than losing a bit of hair. (Viagra or Xenical anyone)
And it is not that the adverts with the perfect people are not my age any longer I am not sure if they are even advertising at me. There is currently an advert for Fiji on the telly where two perfect specimens step out of a float plane and walk together along a deserted palm tree lined beach. So I know this isn’t for me because apart from the fact I don’t look like the people on the advert if I were to go to Fiji I would have a child with me for a start.
So who are they advertising at because the people who do look like the advert (the 20 something crowd) can’t generally afford that sort of trip with the float planes etc and are much more likely to be backpacking their way around Asia or Europe. So the answer is they are advertising at me and it is supposed to be “aspirational”. I am meant to want to be like the people on the advert and go to Fiji anyway and spend my time by the pool of a resort feeling that in some way I am part of the advert fantasy.
This is the same silliness you hear around brands, the reason why Kelvin Klein jeans are a lot more expensive than some no name brand (or even a standard brand). They are not selling jeans but the Kelvin Klein life style that goes with them. So just like sitting at the pool in Fiji is supposed to make me feel like the six pack model with the perfect girlfriend on the beach, wearing KK jeans is supposed to make you feel a little closer to the fashion divas of Paris etc. (Kelvin Klein is just an example by the way I don’t have it in for him or his brand)
Why do we fall for this stuff (and I presume we must of the advertising mob wouldn’t waste their time with it) What does this say about our self esteem? That we are so easily diverted from true self by some trinkets that pretend to deliver entry into the “right” group.
They say that these days you get to pick your tribe, meaning that once upon a time the total number of people you would meet would be those in your village or nearby so you had a need to conform to the local tribal views. Now with improved travel and especially communications via the Internet you can connect with all sorts of people worldwide that share your views. Of course if you find yourself “following” Kelvin Klein and other aspirational brands then do you really know who you are? Or are you being told what tribe you should follow.
I personally hate being told what to do by anyone, least of all marketing teams so I avoid brands, if I do buy a brand name it is because it earned its status by being the best not because a marketing guy created a vision for me to buy into. Know yourself, think for yourself avoid apirational marketing for no other reason than it makes the products a lot more expensive.
And it is not that the adverts with the perfect people are not my age any longer I am not sure if they are even advertising at me. There is currently an advert for Fiji on the telly where two perfect specimens step out of a float plane and walk together along a deserted palm tree lined beach. So I know this isn’t for me because apart from the fact I don’t look like the people on the advert if I were to go to Fiji I would have a child with me for a start.
So who are they advertising at because the people who do look like the advert (the 20 something crowd) can’t generally afford that sort of trip with the float planes etc and are much more likely to be backpacking their way around Asia or Europe. So the answer is they are advertising at me and it is supposed to be “aspirational”. I am meant to want to be like the people on the advert and go to Fiji anyway and spend my time by the pool of a resort feeling that in some way I am part of the advert fantasy.
This is the same silliness you hear around brands, the reason why Kelvin Klein jeans are a lot more expensive than some no name brand (or even a standard brand). They are not selling jeans but the Kelvin Klein life style that goes with them. So just like sitting at the pool in Fiji is supposed to make me feel like the six pack model with the perfect girlfriend on the beach, wearing KK jeans is supposed to make you feel a little closer to the fashion divas of Paris etc. (Kelvin Klein is just an example by the way I don’t have it in for him or his brand)
Why do we fall for this stuff (and I presume we must of the advertising mob wouldn’t waste their time with it) What does this say about our self esteem? That we are so easily diverted from true self by some trinkets that pretend to deliver entry into the “right” group.
They say that these days you get to pick your tribe, meaning that once upon a time the total number of people you would meet would be those in your village or nearby so you had a need to conform to the local tribal views. Now with improved travel and especially communications via the Internet you can connect with all sorts of people worldwide that share your views. Of course if you find yourself “following” Kelvin Klein and other aspirational brands then do you really know who you are? Or are you being told what tribe you should follow.
I personally hate being told what to do by anyone, least of all marketing teams so I avoid brands, if I do buy a brand name it is because it earned its status by being the best not because a marketing guy created a vision for me to buy into. Know yourself, think for yourself avoid apirational marketing for no other reason than it makes the products a lot more expensive.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
London Calling
"London calling to the underworld’ Come out of the cupboard, all you boys and girls" (The Clash)
So it has taken me a while to mull this over but it was inevitable that there would be a comment on the recent England riots.
Firstly it is not that unusual for the odd bit of rioting in England, there were the Brixton riots, Poll tax riots, student riots and a couple of others besides, it seems that in England the odd riot is merely part of the democratic process. Wide scale looting on the other hand seems to be a different thing and it is this bit that seems to have lead to all the name calling and hand wringing amongst the ruling classes.
So what caused this is what I have been trying to decide. I am probably too far away to truly understand what is going on but that won’t stop me trying.
The first obvious point is that it is the poor that are rioting, but there is nothing much to be learned from that, it is always the peasants causing trouble, the gentry like things the way they are because by definition the system works for them. (not least because they are likely to have had a hand in designing the system) But mostly the poor don’t riot so why are they so grumpy now. Well first a seemingly irrelevant aside.
Every now and then World Vision or some such organisation appears on my television asking me to give them money to feed the people in some place I can’t place on a map (unless you count pointing to an entire continent) because they are suffering from famine. While at a human level the pictures and plight of these people can be distressing I have never been a fan of giving money to feed these folk and here is why.
Any given environment can support a certain number of creatures, this works for fish in a pond and humans in a given area, when the food supply is plentiful the population expands and when there is a natural crash in the food supply the population contracts, again the same for all creatures including people. One of the biggest influences in food supply is weather, good vs bad growing seasons. If you looked at this phenomenon over time you would be able to see that on average a pond can support an average of 10 fish (say) and if the population was restricted to 10 then there would be no boom and bust, especially if you can carry over the surplus from the good seasons to support yourself in the bad seasons, something people have learned to do in any number of ways.
So what happens when you support people through the bust cycle by giving them food? Well you prevent the bust which presumably leads to an even greater population (because some of the breeding stock is not killed off) thereby putting more pressure on the environment increasing the frequency of bad periods (because some of the marginal seasons become bad due to increased population) and so if that cycle continues you just have a continuous famine period because the population exceeds the environments ability to maintain it.
All very interesting but how does this apply to London? Well it shows that sometimes doing a seemingly good thing and a humane thing can sometimes be detrimental and potentially lead to even more suffering in the long term (everyone always in famine conditions) In the case of England potentially this is the welfare system in action.
Welfare is the equivalent of feeding famine victims in the bad years and it masks the signals that might otherwise be sent. For examples having babies that you can’t feed without any intervention would lead to dead babies (yes a very bad thing it is just an example) but it might also stop you having more babies, however with Welfare, no dead babies and less pressure on having more babies therefore a bigger problem. Another example, there is a lot of immigration into England presumably for a lot of different reasons but one reason will be to improve the economic lot of some of the immigrants, however if there were a lot of people starving on the street because there were no jobs this might make some of them not immigrate again less pressure on the environment.
So to be clear I am not blaming the riots on babies or immigrants, my suggestion is that maybe we have reached some sort of welfare induced tipping point where a section of society is in famine all of the time and we got there through a welfare system that is humane but misguided. This has become a problem right now because the total environment (England) has run out of resources (Austerity Britain) and the food supply is drying up. When there are too many fish in the pond even the big fish get unhappy.
The bigger problem for me is that I don’t think England has this problem to itself.
So it has taken me a while to mull this over but it was inevitable that there would be a comment on the recent England riots.
Firstly it is not that unusual for the odd bit of rioting in England, there were the Brixton riots, Poll tax riots, student riots and a couple of others besides, it seems that in England the odd riot is merely part of the democratic process. Wide scale looting on the other hand seems to be a different thing and it is this bit that seems to have lead to all the name calling and hand wringing amongst the ruling classes.
So what caused this is what I have been trying to decide. I am probably too far away to truly understand what is going on but that won’t stop me trying.
The first obvious point is that it is the poor that are rioting, but there is nothing much to be learned from that, it is always the peasants causing trouble, the gentry like things the way they are because by definition the system works for them. (not least because they are likely to have had a hand in designing the system) But mostly the poor don’t riot so why are they so grumpy now. Well first a seemingly irrelevant aside.
Every now and then World Vision or some such organisation appears on my television asking me to give them money to feed the people in some place I can’t place on a map (unless you count pointing to an entire continent) because they are suffering from famine. While at a human level the pictures and plight of these people can be distressing I have never been a fan of giving money to feed these folk and here is why.
Any given environment can support a certain number of creatures, this works for fish in a pond and humans in a given area, when the food supply is plentiful the population expands and when there is a natural crash in the food supply the population contracts, again the same for all creatures including people. One of the biggest influences in food supply is weather, good vs bad growing seasons. If you looked at this phenomenon over time you would be able to see that on average a pond can support an average of 10 fish (say) and if the population was restricted to 10 then there would be no boom and bust, especially if you can carry over the surplus from the good seasons to support yourself in the bad seasons, something people have learned to do in any number of ways.
So what happens when you support people through the bust cycle by giving them food? Well you prevent the bust which presumably leads to an even greater population (because some of the breeding stock is not killed off) thereby putting more pressure on the environment increasing the frequency of bad periods (because some of the marginal seasons become bad due to increased population) and so if that cycle continues you just have a continuous famine period because the population exceeds the environments ability to maintain it.
All very interesting but how does this apply to London? Well it shows that sometimes doing a seemingly good thing and a humane thing can sometimes be detrimental and potentially lead to even more suffering in the long term (everyone always in famine conditions) In the case of England potentially this is the welfare system in action.
Welfare is the equivalent of feeding famine victims in the bad years and it masks the signals that might otherwise be sent. For examples having babies that you can’t feed without any intervention would lead to dead babies (yes a very bad thing it is just an example) but it might also stop you having more babies, however with Welfare, no dead babies and less pressure on having more babies therefore a bigger problem. Another example, there is a lot of immigration into England presumably for a lot of different reasons but one reason will be to improve the economic lot of some of the immigrants, however if there were a lot of people starving on the street because there were no jobs this might make some of them not immigrate again less pressure on the environment.
So to be clear I am not blaming the riots on babies or immigrants, my suggestion is that maybe we have reached some sort of welfare induced tipping point where a section of society is in famine all of the time and we got there through a welfare system that is humane but misguided. This has become a problem right now because the total environment (England) has run out of resources (Austerity Britain) and the food supply is drying up. When there are too many fish in the pond even the big fish get unhappy.
The bigger problem for me is that I don’t think England has this problem to itself.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Expediency over Logic
So a little while back I wrote an entry titled My Child Your Taxes where I discussed the government’s decision to cut funding for early childhood education. I think their decision at that time was rational based on the likely economic benefit versus the cost to a government that is struggling to balance its books.
So yesterday it was disappointing to hear that the government has reversed its decision and is now going to continue to fund this sector at the current levels.
So what happened? Clearly in the intervening months the facts of the matter didn’t change, the need for this type of middle class welfare continues to be suspect, the economic benefit is still low to nil and the government certainly hasn’t become any wealthier in fact with the current state of the world it is probably looking at being poorer.
Clearly the vested interest lobby groups (ok that is clearly emotive and redundant language all lobby groups have a vested interest by definition) have done their work and succeeded in applying sufficient political pressure in an election year so that the relevant politicians have caved in.
Is this what we pay these people for? To take the path of least resistance. Isn’t caving in to a lobby group a form of Might is Right. You see given that the decision had been made and was logical people who agreed with the decision would not have felt the need to make their feelings known, therefore this argument becomes completely one sided as the politicians only hear the lobby group side.
And so what any way, if I lobbied for free ice cream on Fridays no matter how many people I could round up to support the proposal it still wouldn’t be a good idea. Any sensible leader at any level would be able to say no to such a request as it is fairly obvious that this is unlikely to produce any real benefit, other than the obvious short term ones of enjoying the ice cream. If the Ice Cream manufacturers came out in favour of the idea on the basis that this would increase employment in their sector and lead to a robust industry that would be the envy of the world. Would that help the argument? Again clearly not as we could see fairly readily that we were just providing a government subsidy in the form of a transfer from tax payers to ice cream manufacturers. And finally just because it would make the politicians popular (everyone likes “free” stuff after all) that wouldn’t make it good as again we could all see that it was really a bribe type of an idea from a political angle.
But this is exactly what has happened with the exception of the ice cream idea doesn’t have a “vulnerable group” to support. As an aside I am a bit over hearing about vulnerable groups, probably because I am never in one, which in one way is a good thing for me but as far as I can tell most people are. We have children no matter how rich and spoilt are always referred to as vulnerable if you cut government spending directed at them. Then there are the old (any one over 65 despite vast evidence to the contrary that most of these folk are anything but “old”) The sick, the disabled, youth, the unemployed, solo mums, working mums, women in general, low paid workers, any ethnic group etc If you want to be a successful lobby group you need to have some “vulnerable” people to support which is relatively easy because with a bit of PR effort anyone can become one.
And at the end of the day so what, leaders should lead for the good of the total community they were elected to represent, not cave into people demanding free ice creams.
So yesterday it was disappointing to hear that the government has reversed its decision and is now going to continue to fund this sector at the current levels.
So what happened? Clearly in the intervening months the facts of the matter didn’t change, the need for this type of middle class welfare continues to be suspect, the economic benefit is still low to nil and the government certainly hasn’t become any wealthier in fact with the current state of the world it is probably looking at being poorer.
Clearly the vested interest lobby groups (ok that is clearly emotive and redundant language all lobby groups have a vested interest by definition) have done their work and succeeded in applying sufficient political pressure in an election year so that the relevant politicians have caved in.
Is this what we pay these people for? To take the path of least resistance. Isn’t caving in to a lobby group a form of Might is Right. You see given that the decision had been made and was logical people who agreed with the decision would not have felt the need to make their feelings known, therefore this argument becomes completely one sided as the politicians only hear the lobby group side.
And so what any way, if I lobbied for free ice cream on Fridays no matter how many people I could round up to support the proposal it still wouldn’t be a good idea. Any sensible leader at any level would be able to say no to such a request as it is fairly obvious that this is unlikely to produce any real benefit, other than the obvious short term ones of enjoying the ice cream. If the Ice Cream manufacturers came out in favour of the idea on the basis that this would increase employment in their sector and lead to a robust industry that would be the envy of the world. Would that help the argument? Again clearly not as we could see fairly readily that we were just providing a government subsidy in the form of a transfer from tax payers to ice cream manufacturers. And finally just because it would make the politicians popular (everyone likes “free” stuff after all) that wouldn’t make it good as again we could all see that it was really a bribe type of an idea from a political angle.
But this is exactly what has happened with the exception of the ice cream idea doesn’t have a “vulnerable group” to support. As an aside I am a bit over hearing about vulnerable groups, probably because I am never in one, which in one way is a good thing for me but as far as I can tell most people are. We have children no matter how rich and spoilt are always referred to as vulnerable if you cut government spending directed at them. Then there are the old (any one over 65 despite vast evidence to the contrary that most of these folk are anything but “old”) The sick, the disabled, youth, the unemployed, solo mums, working mums, women in general, low paid workers, any ethnic group etc If you want to be a successful lobby group you need to have some “vulnerable” people to support which is relatively easy because with a bit of PR effort anyone can become one.
And at the end of the day so what, leaders should lead for the good of the total community they were elected to represent, not cave into people demanding free ice creams.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Together We Fall
I have been pondering the role of unions in the modern world and my gut reaction is that they are an idea that has past its use by date.
But first the disclaimer, I am employed in a position that puts me in the “bosses” side of the “workers” vs the “bosses” interface between management and unions. Worse than being in that camp it is part of my duties to negotiate with the unions on behalf of my employer. So you can decide for yourself how biased that makes any further comments.
I have tried to persuade some people recently that the union (any union as it wasn’t in fact the one that I deal with that I was discussing) is bad for their employment health. My argument was that when negotiating with a union, the worker that the boss has in their head is inevitably the worst case scenario worker, who while performing their job will always operate to the lowest allowable standard. The union of course thinks all of the people they represent are brilliant workers which in most cases any number of them are but never all. And that is the problem with collective negotiation at best it tends to the middle and it never allows for the performance of individuals within that collective. Net result lower average wages for the group.
If people are rational and it is a bad idea why does it still exist. Well one reason is that for employers it is quite handy to treat workers as a lump. As already mentioned it potentially allows you to keep total wages lower than they might otherwise be and saves you a heap of admin time by having to deal with just one negotiation, rather than many individuals. So maybe the bosses like it and promote it although the evidence for this idea seems scarce given what most would say about unions.
So the individual is smarter than that right, I mean after all it costs them money (union dues) and for most it lowers their wages (the better ones presumably the poor workers may be better off) so they must be doing it for some reason. Presumably it is therefore the protection from “bad” employers that it offers, you know those firms you hear about that fire people at will and offer poor working conditions.
But unions don’t do that. These days it is the law that offers those protections and at best the union offers a sort of enforcement system to make sure the law is adhered to. But it is a very expensive option for the workers given that there are government paid for organisations that will do this stuff for free.
And any way the bigger an employer the more likely they are to have Union involvement but also the more likely they are to behave properly in terms of employment law. It tends to be the small employer who doesn’t know or potentially doesn’t care that abuses worker rights and you seldom have any union involvement.
One of the unions my organisation deals with holds itself out as representing hospitality workers, bar and waiting staff and the like who regularly have their employment rights trampled in bars and cafes around the country but never a peep out of the union because as the union guy told me “it is too much trouble”. So unions represent workers who by and large don’t need it and ignore the little guy cause it is too hard for them which maybe very rational from a union point of view but doesn't seem to add much value to the process.
While historically there was a need for unions who fought for the employment law and workers rights that we, including me, enjoy now (as the union tends to forget I am a worker too just in a different job) the fight is over. The maintenance of those laws (something the union is quick to worry about) is a political fight now not the struggle of the workers at an employee / employer level.
So why workers feel the need to hand over unions dues for no perceptible gain remains a mystery to me, unless like a lot of people and a lot of things in life they have never stopped to think about it and it is “just what we do”.
But first the disclaimer, I am employed in a position that puts me in the “bosses” side of the “workers” vs the “bosses” interface between management and unions. Worse than being in that camp it is part of my duties to negotiate with the unions on behalf of my employer. So you can decide for yourself how biased that makes any further comments.
I have tried to persuade some people recently that the union (any union as it wasn’t in fact the one that I deal with that I was discussing) is bad for their employment health. My argument was that when negotiating with a union, the worker that the boss has in their head is inevitably the worst case scenario worker, who while performing their job will always operate to the lowest allowable standard. The union of course thinks all of the people they represent are brilliant workers which in most cases any number of them are but never all. And that is the problem with collective negotiation at best it tends to the middle and it never allows for the performance of individuals within that collective. Net result lower average wages for the group.
If people are rational and it is a bad idea why does it still exist. Well one reason is that for employers it is quite handy to treat workers as a lump. As already mentioned it potentially allows you to keep total wages lower than they might otherwise be and saves you a heap of admin time by having to deal with just one negotiation, rather than many individuals. So maybe the bosses like it and promote it although the evidence for this idea seems scarce given what most would say about unions.
So the individual is smarter than that right, I mean after all it costs them money (union dues) and for most it lowers their wages (the better ones presumably the poor workers may be better off) so they must be doing it for some reason. Presumably it is therefore the protection from “bad” employers that it offers, you know those firms you hear about that fire people at will and offer poor working conditions.
But unions don’t do that. These days it is the law that offers those protections and at best the union offers a sort of enforcement system to make sure the law is adhered to. But it is a very expensive option for the workers given that there are government paid for organisations that will do this stuff for free.
And any way the bigger an employer the more likely they are to have Union involvement but also the more likely they are to behave properly in terms of employment law. It tends to be the small employer who doesn’t know or potentially doesn’t care that abuses worker rights and you seldom have any union involvement.
One of the unions my organisation deals with holds itself out as representing hospitality workers, bar and waiting staff and the like who regularly have their employment rights trampled in bars and cafes around the country but never a peep out of the union because as the union guy told me “it is too much trouble”. So unions represent workers who by and large don’t need it and ignore the little guy cause it is too hard for them which maybe very rational from a union point of view but doesn't seem to add much value to the process.
While historically there was a need for unions who fought for the employment law and workers rights that we, including me, enjoy now (as the union tends to forget I am a worker too just in a different job) the fight is over. The maintenance of those laws (something the union is quick to worry about) is a political fight now not the struggle of the workers at an employee / employer level.
So why workers feel the need to hand over unions dues for no perceptible gain remains a mystery to me, unless like a lot of people and a lot of things in life they have never stopped to think about it and it is “just what we do”.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Just Give Me The Facts
So I have been having an email debate with a colleague over some different ways you can manage an economy. In his latest email he listed a number of “facts” that were clearly wrong. So after burying these ideas with some independently verifiable sources I pronounced myself the winner of that portion of the debate. But no he responded with “well that may all be so but I believe it would be better if...”
This sort of thing drives me nuts, let’s ignore the facts in favour of “beliefs” and people do it all the time. I was particularly reminded about the vaccination “debate” (debate in quotes because I believe there is no valid counter position). Now I am happy for people to have beliefs but this does not make them a valid criteria for decision making.
This got me thinking about “facts” that are subject to challenge or if you will the nature of “facts”. On the face of it what is a fact should be straight forward so I tried to think of things that all of us would agree on. It struck me as harder than I first thought. For example presumably we agree on basic human needs, eg people need to eat, sleep, and drink. (well if they want to stay being people). But perhaps we couldn’t even agree on this as there are examples of people who don’t sleep and eating comes in many forms so potentially even drinking is optional (you might be able to get all your fluid needs from food). So maybe facts are harder to find than I thought.
Then there is the “fact” that there is global climate change, according to a lot of people this is so but I don’t “believe” this fact. There are those words again and I think I have “facts” to back up my belief but not everyone agrees with my facts as I don’t agree with theirs.
Perhaps on second thoughts beliefs are more solid than facts, for example I believe that human life has value. Something that a lot of people would agree with, especially if it is phrased regarding their own life. Do I have “facts” to support my belief. Err well no not really and my belief would be open to challenge in certain situations. (eg sacrificing some lives for the greater good). In fact if we look at the whole concept of human rights this seems more founded on belief than on facts. For example sexual orientation is considered a human right (something I don’t have an issue with before any one sends me hate mail) but I think I could construct an argument that sex without children is potentially a negative idea as that is basically the point right, otherwise the species would die out which is counter to our basic drive.
So where does all this get me, well it makes it more understandable that we debate things that in my mind don’t need debate because the answer is clear. Potentially the answer is clear because of the “facts” I am basing my arguments on, if people won’t accept your facts then you are doomed in your arguments.
Now I don’t think we should throw away scientific enquiry which has at its heart understanding the facts, quite the opposite to agree on the facts or to have aligned beliefs is to agree on the way forward more likely as not. So lets keep our minds open to the search for the truth the whole truth and nothing but, however I guess we need to leave some room for beliefs assuming of course that they don’t conflict with the facts.
This sort of thing drives me nuts, let’s ignore the facts in favour of “beliefs” and people do it all the time. I was particularly reminded about the vaccination “debate” (debate in quotes because I believe there is no valid counter position). Now I am happy for people to have beliefs but this does not make them a valid criteria for decision making.
This got me thinking about “facts” that are subject to challenge or if you will the nature of “facts”. On the face of it what is a fact should be straight forward so I tried to think of things that all of us would agree on. It struck me as harder than I first thought. For example presumably we agree on basic human needs, eg people need to eat, sleep, and drink. (well if they want to stay being people). But perhaps we couldn’t even agree on this as there are examples of people who don’t sleep and eating comes in many forms so potentially even drinking is optional (you might be able to get all your fluid needs from food). So maybe facts are harder to find than I thought.
Then there is the “fact” that there is global climate change, according to a lot of people this is so but I don’t “believe” this fact. There are those words again and I think I have “facts” to back up my belief but not everyone agrees with my facts as I don’t agree with theirs.
Perhaps on second thoughts beliefs are more solid than facts, for example I believe that human life has value. Something that a lot of people would agree with, especially if it is phrased regarding their own life. Do I have “facts” to support my belief. Err well no not really and my belief would be open to challenge in certain situations. (eg sacrificing some lives for the greater good). In fact if we look at the whole concept of human rights this seems more founded on belief than on facts. For example sexual orientation is considered a human right (something I don’t have an issue with before any one sends me hate mail) but I think I could construct an argument that sex without children is potentially a negative idea as that is basically the point right, otherwise the species would die out which is counter to our basic drive.
So where does all this get me, well it makes it more understandable that we debate things that in my mind don’t need debate because the answer is clear. Potentially the answer is clear because of the “facts” I am basing my arguments on, if people won’t accept your facts then you are doomed in your arguments.
Now I don’t think we should throw away scientific enquiry which has at its heart understanding the facts, quite the opposite to agree on the facts or to have aligned beliefs is to agree on the way forward more likely as not. So lets keep our minds open to the search for the truth the whole truth and nothing but, however I guess we need to leave some room for beliefs assuming of course that they don’t conflict with the facts.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Small Gods
Plato developed the idea of Forms and as I understand it, it is the nature of things which is separate from the thing itself. For example Happy or Happiness is a real thing. No one would deny that it exists but not in material form, you can’t bring me a jar of happy. That doesn’t mean there is no such thing as happy and making someone sad, or indeed everyone sad wouldn’t make happy go away. Happy would still be a real thing we just wouldn’t be able to see it in a world where everyone was sad. So happy is a Form, a thing that while not real is fundamental and everlasting and which can be a part of a real thing. Eg some people are made happy by chocolate, so happy is part of the chocolate for them but it isn’t “the chocolate”, when the chocolate is gone happy continues. As a practical example you may stay happy for sometime after the chocolate is gone.
So I think gods work the same way in that they are brought into being by an acceptance of their existence and they never die but their influence declines. For example Ra the sun god was worshiped by the ancient Egyptians and was no doubt quite powerful at that time, no one would probably have denied the existence of Ra. He was especially problematic among bulls who used to be sacrificed to Ra I am sure that they would have agreed he was a real force at that time. Well not so many people worship Ra and invoking his aid in a crisis probably won’t help much as his (or hers I am not sure) power has been eroded by a lack of followers. On the other hand he hasn’t died entirely as I (for one) still know who he was. Therefore I think Ra has gone from Large god to small god, less people care about Ra and his power has waned.
In NZ we used to have a large and powerful god who is shrinking before our very eyes, our god was called Rugby and high priests were the NZRFU. Now while you can go and see a game of Rugby just like happy you rugby exists as a form it is imbued in the way some people behave and to some degree the way they think.
There is an old joke about turning props around at half time so that they knew which way to run (I used to be a prop so I can say that), the trouble is I have a suspicion that the NZRFU is mostly staffed by ex props or at least folk that think like props. For many years the fans have been shouting at them that it is time to turn around, stop going in this direction but they aren’t listening and so the large powerful god of Rugby is shrinking and getting smaller all the time.
Take the upcoming test in Dunedin with the mighty All Blacks playing the likely to be highly entertaining Fijians. This should be a fun match to go to with a pretty much guaranteed win to the AB’s mixed with a bit of open running rugby from the Fijians. So with 5 days out from the game only 10,000 of appox 30,000 seats have been sold. Imagine a test match (no matter who against) not being sold out (or mostly) at this point. What has happened?
Well I think the NZRFU ignored the golden rule “the customer is always right” and so their god is shrinking and while rugby will never disappear it may end up like the cult of Ra. On the upside the bulls are safer these days.
So I think gods work the same way in that they are brought into being by an acceptance of their existence and they never die but their influence declines. For example Ra the sun god was worshiped by the ancient Egyptians and was no doubt quite powerful at that time, no one would probably have denied the existence of Ra. He was especially problematic among bulls who used to be sacrificed to Ra I am sure that they would have agreed he was a real force at that time. Well not so many people worship Ra and invoking his aid in a crisis probably won’t help much as his (or hers I am not sure) power has been eroded by a lack of followers. On the other hand he hasn’t died entirely as I (for one) still know who he was. Therefore I think Ra has gone from Large god to small god, less people care about Ra and his power has waned.
In NZ we used to have a large and powerful god who is shrinking before our very eyes, our god was called Rugby and high priests were the NZRFU. Now while you can go and see a game of Rugby just like happy you rugby exists as a form it is imbued in the way some people behave and to some degree the way they think.
There is an old joke about turning props around at half time so that they knew which way to run (I used to be a prop so I can say that), the trouble is I have a suspicion that the NZRFU is mostly staffed by ex props or at least folk that think like props. For many years the fans have been shouting at them that it is time to turn around, stop going in this direction but they aren’t listening and so the large powerful god of Rugby is shrinking and getting smaller all the time.
Take the upcoming test in Dunedin with the mighty All Blacks playing the likely to be highly entertaining Fijians. This should be a fun match to go to with a pretty much guaranteed win to the AB’s mixed with a bit of open running rugby from the Fijians. So with 5 days out from the game only 10,000 of appox 30,000 seats have been sold. Imagine a test match (no matter who against) not being sold out (or mostly) at this point. What has happened?
Well I think the NZRFU ignored the golden rule “the customer is always right” and so their god is shrinking and while rugby will never disappear it may end up like the cult of Ra. On the upside the bulls are safer these days.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Middle Age is Depressing
And no I am not referring to the traditional mid life crisis suffered mostly by men according to popular culture where they run off with the trophy bride and start driving a sports car.
I am referring to real life where it is a stage in your life where your parents are often reaching the end of their lives with some of the end of life dramas we all suffer of declining health an increasing need for support and possibly the associated death of some of the potentially closest relationships you will ever have.
Mean while back at home your kids have stopped being loveable little toddler types and have potentially turned into diabolical teenagers whose sole purpose in life seems to be making your life harder. Even if they haven’t reached this stage yet it will be looming and the calls on your time to run them to and fro to sports and other activities are high.
Career wise you are likely to have approached your peak, old enough to have some experience and young enough to be considered useful, on the other hand assuming you are not running a multi national conglomerate fulfilling your every career dream it is much more likely that work has become routine and you have become the victim of the Peter principal (people are promoted to one level above their competence) which generally makes life either boring or very stressful and because this is your lot the dream of the corner office is over.
And sounding like a good economist, on the other hand again it is this group that is called upon to be the back bone of society, donating their time in many volunteer roles to keep any number of clubs, charities community groups and the like functioning and in today’s society with minimal if any thanks and the potential for a large amount of criticism.
And if it is not bad enough that your parents health is falling apart, mid life is when doctors state talking about digital exams without a computer insight etc and your own health is not what it used to be. Lucky the dog is now as unfit as you are so you can just go for a walk around the block and pretend that “snack” exercise is sufficient to keep you looking and feeling 20.
Finally, the more traditional mid life crisis of realising that the attractive girls that you see on the street think you are a potentially creepy old man and you think they should dress properly and talk without using the word like at the beginning and end of every sentence. Damn you have turned into your father.
So it is no wonder that I have noticed an increasing number of my middle aged acquaintances who are feeling down or who are genuinely clinically depressed. The good news is that society is maturing enough after the work of John Kirwin and the like so that these folks feel secure enough to talk about it.
I suspect the bad news is there are more people out there soldiering on, well look around it is tough in the middle of your life, at a minimum share with your mates and if it is really bad get help. People as a general rule love to help. Look out for someone middle aged that’s what they do.
I am referring to real life where it is a stage in your life where your parents are often reaching the end of their lives with some of the end of life dramas we all suffer of declining health an increasing need for support and possibly the associated death of some of the potentially closest relationships you will ever have.
Mean while back at home your kids have stopped being loveable little toddler types and have potentially turned into diabolical teenagers whose sole purpose in life seems to be making your life harder. Even if they haven’t reached this stage yet it will be looming and the calls on your time to run them to and fro to sports and other activities are high.
Career wise you are likely to have approached your peak, old enough to have some experience and young enough to be considered useful, on the other hand assuming you are not running a multi national conglomerate fulfilling your every career dream it is much more likely that work has become routine and you have become the victim of the Peter principal (people are promoted to one level above their competence) which generally makes life either boring or very stressful and because this is your lot the dream of the corner office is over.
And sounding like a good economist, on the other hand again it is this group that is called upon to be the back bone of society, donating their time in many volunteer roles to keep any number of clubs, charities community groups and the like functioning and in today’s society with minimal if any thanks and the potential for a large amount of criticism.
And if it is not bad enough that your parents health is falling apart, mid life is when doctors state talking about digital exams without a computer insight etc and your own health is not what it used to be. Lucky the dog is now as unfit as you are so you can just go for a walk around the block and pretend that “snack” exercise is sufficient to keep you looking and feeling 20.
Finally, the more traditional mid life crisis of realising that the attractive girls that you see on the street think you are a potentially creepy old man and you think they should dress properly and talk without using the word like at the beginning and end of every sentence. Damn you have turned into your father.
So it is no wonder that I have noticed an increasing number of my middle aged acquaintances who are feeling down or who are genuinely clinically depressed. The good news is that society is maturing enough after the work of John Kirwin and the like so that these folks feel secure enough to talk about it.
I suspect the bad news is there are more people out there soldiering on, well look around it is tough in the middle of your life, at a minimum share with your mates and if it is really bad get help. People as a general rule love to help. Look out for someone middle aged that’s what they do.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Get with the program
Lately there seems to have been a raft of media stories on the pro’s and cons of Vaccination.
Last night there was an Australian 60 minutes article focusing on two young babies (under 6 months and therefore not able to be immunised) that had died as a result of contracting Whooping Cough.
Before that it was some parental outrage from a group of mothers whose children had been sent home from school as they were not immunised against measles and there had been an outbreak in the community.
They were outraged because they had to take time off work to look after their kids and couldn’t seem to understand why the school didn’t start running separate classes etc for their children. It was after all their right not to immunise their kids.
And sadly it is their right, but should it be? First let’s dispose of the outliers in this argument, there are some limited cases where immunisation is not a good idea, for example children already suffering from cancer or have a problem with their immunity for whatever reason. We clearly shouldn’t immunise these children and have no need to do it as there is room in the system for a few unimmunised individuals.
In the 60 minutes doco though they were looking at a community where 1 in 4 kids were not immunised. And we are not talking about some down and out community that didn’t understand the issues this was a solid middleclass community of educated people.
Generally I think people should be left to get on with their lives and compulsory anything needs to be treated with caution, however your rights can’t be allowed to harm others as a general rule and in this instance those unimmunised people who therefore allowed Whooping Cough into their community effectively killed those babies. In the normal course of events if that was one person we would prosecute of murder but because a mob of ignorant people did it they get away with it.
And yes I said ignorant any one that does not immunise their child (without medical advice not to) is simple ignorant and too stupid to be left in charge of a child. There is simple no credible evidence that this is a bad idea. Tens of millions of people have been immunised with probably thousands of studies undertaken on the matter and no one of any standing in the community would be prepared to be against this. If it was systematically bad for people don’t you think we would have noticed by now? Millions and millions of people have had this remember, in every country in the world to a greater and lesser degree.
What we do know for an absolute fact is that many, many diseases have been effectively wiped out in developed nations, generally babies do not die from whooping cough, kids are not crippled by polio etc.
And the people deciding to not vaccinate are not the people who suffer the consequences, it is most likely to be their children or even worse someone else’s child. How do we continue to allow this, it is time we sorted this out once and for all and made it compulsory, to hell with the parents rights, what about the child’s rights. I have seen whooping cough in action and it is very unpleasant at the very least and clearly deadly at the worst.
Last night there was an Australian 60 minutes article focusing on two young babies (under 6 months and therefore not able to be immunised) that had died as a result of contracting Whooping Cough.
Before that it was some parental outrage from a group of mothers whose children had been sent home from school as they were not immunised against measles and there had been an outbreak in the community.
They were outraged because they had to take time off work to look after their kids and couldn’t seem to understand why the school didn’t start running separate classes etc for their children. It was after all their right not to immunise their kids.
And sadly it is their right, but should it be? First let’s dispose of the outliers in this argument, there are some limited cases where immunisation is not a good idea, for example children already suffering from cancer or have a problem with their immunity for whatever reason. We clearly shouldn’t immunise these children and have no need to do it as there is room in the system for a few unimmunised individuals.
In the 60 minutes doco though they were looking at a community where 1 in 4 kids were not immunised. And we are not talking about some down and out community that didn’t understand the issues this was a solid middleclass community of educated people.
Generally I think people should be left to get on with their lives and compulsory anything needs to be treated with caution, however your rights can’t be allowed to harm others as a general rule and in this instance those unimmunised people who therefore allowed Whooping Cough into their community effectively killed those babies. In the normal course of events if that was one person we would prosecute of murder but because a mob of ignorant people did it they get away with it.
And yes I said ignorant any one that does not immunise their child (without medical advice not to) is simple ignorant and too stupid to be left in charge of a child. There is simple no credible evidence that this is a bad idea. Tens of millions of people have been immunised with probably thousands of studies undertaken on the matter and no one of any standing in the community would be prepared to be against this. If it was systematically bad for people don’t you think we would have noticed by now? Millions and millions of people have had this remember, in every country in the world to a greater and lesser degree.
What we do know for an absolute fact is that many, many diseases have been effectively wiped out in developed nations, generally babies do not die from whooping cough, kids are not crippled by polio etc.
And the people deciding to not vaccinate are not the people who suffer the consequences, it is most likely to be their children or even worse someone else’s child. How do we continue to allow this, it is time we sorted this out once and for all and made it compulsory, to hell with the parents rights, what about the child’s rights. I have seen whooping cough in action and it is very unpleasant at the very least and clearly deadly at the worst.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Welfare
In common with a lot of other countries NZ spends a significant chunk of government money on direct hand outs to some of its citizens. I refer of course to Welfare payments in the broadest sense from Unemployment benefits to Superannuation Payments. Most Superannuation recipients don’t see this as welfare as if you ask them most will tell you they “earned it” through paying their taxes while they were working, but for the purpose of this I will ignore those issues for now and the wisdom of other benefits that people worry about, for example “dole bludgers” and “professional DPB recipients”.
What I do know for an undisputable fact is it costs a lot, specifically $22.9 bn or 31% of total government expenditure with the next two biggest being health at $14.4 bn and education at $12.3 bn making it not too far off the size of those two combined.
What do we get for this huge spend, well by and large we get people trapped in poverty and dependency because despite the large sums spent as a general rule living on a benefit is hardly the life of luxury.
And it is a lot of people specifically this many
Benefit Numbers
Unemployment 60,000
Sickness 60,000
Invalids 85,000
Domestic Purposes Benefit 113,000
Then there are approx 500,000 people over the age of 65 who are entitled to and therefore the majority of whom will be drawing superannuation. It is much harder to generalise about their economic circumstances as for quite a number the superannuation they receive is a top up for other savings etc that they may have. The value of paying people who don’t need it is a much debated topic and refers us back to the “earned it” argument again.
So what’s your point I hear you ask, well for one thing 22.9bn divided by 600,000 people is about $40,000 a person and that is a long way from what they actually get which I would suggest is much closer to about $15,000 but that’s not my point either. My point is being on a benefit is generally a bad idea and has all sorts of negative outcomes. I don’t propose to back that statement up I am just going to ask you to believe me on this one but a small amount of research on your own will undoubtedly confirm this fact.
So here is what I think is the most elegant solution a single universal benefit for every working age person in the country. Yup everyone, working, not working, rich or poor, sick or healthy, with or without children.
So first off we eliminate the majority of benefit fraud as other than pretending you are two people there are no other wrinkles in the system.
No more admin costs, well very minor ones to add people to the list at age 18 and delete them when dead but a relatively small task compared to the current system.
But the key idea is it provides a strong incentive to get work as nothing gets taken off you, every dollar you earn is yours to keep, whereas at the moment you end up with a benefit reduction when you work, giving you a low effective earning rate. This will provide the right signals and incentives to get people out of that benefit trap.
How do you pay for this I hear you ask. Well assume that we pay everyone $15k per annum then at about 3 million people to pay it will cost $45 bn. First of all we can use the money we are all ready paying the $22.9 bn which is half and then we need to increase taxes, yep sorry that is the only place money comes from, but hey if you are working then you will be happy to pay $15k more in tax as effectively nothing will change for you anything less than that would be a bonus and I think the cost would be lower but don’t have the data to work it out.
Get out and promote this idea with you local politician etc, it is contained within the working parties ideas and is the best of their proposals in my opinion.
What I do know for an undisputable fact is it costs a lot, specifically $22.9 bn or 31% of total government expenditure with the next two biggest being health at $14.4 bn and education at $12.3 bn making it not too far off the size of those two combined.
What do we get for this huge spend, well by and large we get people trapped in poverty and dependency because despite the large sums spent as a general rule living on a benefit is hardly the life of luxury.
And it is a lot of people specifically this many
Benefit Numbers
Unemployment 60,000
Sickness 60,000
Invalids 85,000
Domestic Purposes Benefit 113,000
Then there are approx 500,000 people over the age of 65 who are entitled to and therefore the majority of whom will be drawing superannuation. It is much harder to generalise about their economic circumstances as for quite a number the superannuation they receive is a top up for other savings etc that they may have. The value of paying people who don’t need it is a much debated topic and refers us back to the “earned it” argument again.
So what’s your point I hear you ask, well for one thing 22.9bn divided by 600,000 people is about $40,000 a person and that is a long way from what they actually get which I would suggest is much closer to about $15,000 but that’s not my point either. My point is being on a benefit is generally a bad idea and has all sorts of negative outcomes. I don’t propose to back that statement up I am just going to ask you to believe me on this one but a small amount of research on your own will undoubtedly confirm this fact.
So here is what I think is the most elegant solution a single universal benefit for every working age person in the country. Yup everyone, working, not working, rich or poor, sick or healthy, with or without children.
So first off we eliminate the majority of benefit fraud as other than pretending you are two people there are no other wrinkles in the system.
No more admin costs, well very minor ones to add people to the list at age 18 and delete them when dead but a relatively small task compared to the current system.
But the key idea is it provides a strong incentive to get work as nothing gets taken off you, every dollar you earn is yours to keep, whereas at the moment you end up with a benefit reduction when you work, giving you a low effective earning rate. This will provide the right signals and incentives to get people out of that benefit trap.
How do you pay for this I hear you ask. Well assume that we pay everyone $15k per annum then at about 3 million people to pay it will cost $45 bn. First of all we can use the money we are all ready paying the $22.9 bn which is half and then we need to increase taxes, yep sorry that is the only place money comes from, but hey if you are working then you will be happy to pay $15k more in tax as effectively nothing will change for you anything less than that would be a bonus and I think the cost would be lower but don’t have the data to work it out.
Get out and promote this idea with you local politician etc, it is contained within the working parties ideas and is the best of their proposals in my opinion.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
The lowest common denominator
Not my usual posting style but how could you put this any better.
What's with all the silly news.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/38776
What's with all the silly news.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/38776
Monday, May 16, 2011
What are you against?
Probably lots of things but why do I ask.
There is a TV show here where a psychologist ties to figure out where some murderer (usually) went off the rails and turned into such a “bad” person. The answer appears to me to be much the same each time, namely someone, usually the parents, were mean and nasty to the now mean and nasty man (it is always a man let’s face it). So learned behaviour mixed in with the mental trauma of rejection, isolation etc mixed with a few drugs and hey presto violent dangerous perp.
So during the latest programme they talked about just such an individual who was a bit lost in the world until he discovered a white power gang. The psychologist noted that given this young man was struggling to define himself in a positive fashion discovering a simple ideology that he could cling to was just what he needed (psychologically presumably) and that this group appealed because they were simply “against” things which is a very easy idea to grasp with no great thinking required.
Now in the case of any racist group this is undoubtedly so, no great world via required to be against black people, all you need are some mental flash cards to compare the person in front of you to and if they register as black then hey presto you are against them.
But this set me to thinking, this applies to most “against” debates, it tends to be a simple argument with being for things making the debate a lot more complex. For example I am against child porn, and it is one of those ideas that doesn’t seem to need much debate and therefore doesn’t get it. If I asked you why you are against it I suspect your brain does a short freeze why it tries to understand the question. I am further willing to bet some form of “because it is” is your first thought and the following arguments that you muster come a little slower. I reckon this is the same simple mindedness (in terms of debate) that drove our white power fellow.
Reframe the question, I am in favour of............ because this will help to eliminate child pornography.
So what goes in the blank? Harsher penalties for offenders? Treatment programs for consumers? Self defence lessons for children? I have to readily admit I have no idea as while the idea of child porn makes my skin crawl because of my easy default “I am against it” view I haven’t given it any further thought. I have no idea what generates the demand, I don’t know where it is made etc. etc.
So without getting lost in a debate on child porn, hopefully everyone who reads this agrees it is a bad idea and if you don’t please send me an email so I can report you to the authorities. My challenge for today is what are you against and stop framing your thinking as "against stuff" and ask yourself what are you for that will achieve your objective of eliminating that which you are against.
Another for example a lot of people would say they are against increased CO2 emissions, which is an easy idea to defeat (it will stifle growth, kill people in the third world, requires concerted global actions that will not happen etc). However if you are in favour of an increasing proportion of our energy needs coming from renewable sources it is a much stronger argument, what can your opponents say? Renewable energy is bad?
So accentuate the positive, eliminate being against stuff.
There is a TV show here where a psychologist ties to figure out where some murderer (usually) went off the rails and turned into such a “bad” person. The answer appears to me to be much the same each time, namely someone, usually the parents, were mean and nasty to the now mean and nasty man (it is always a man let’s face it). So learned behaviour mixed in with the mental trauma of rejection, isolation etc mixed with a few drugs and hey presto violent dangerous perp.
So during the latest programme they talked about just such an individual who was a bit lost in the world until he discovered a white power gang. The psychologist noted that given this young man was struggling to define himself in a positive fashion discovering a simple ideology that he could cling to was just what he needed (psychologically presumably) and that this group appealed because they were simply “against” things which is a very easy idea to grasp with no great thinking required.
Now in the case of any racist group this is undoubtedly so, no great world via required to be against black people, all you need are some mental flash cards to compare the person in front of you to and if they register as black then hey presto you are against them.
But this set me to thinking, this applies to most “against” debates, it tends to be a simple argument with being for things making the debate a lot more complex. For example I am against child porn, and it is one of those ideas that doesn’t seem to need much debate and therefore doesn’t get it. If I asked you why you are against it I suspect your brain does a short freeze why it tries to understand the question. I am further willing to bet some form of “because it is” is your first thought and the following arguments that you muster come a little slower. I reckon this is the same simple mindedness (in terms of debate) that drove our white power fellow.
Reframe the question, I am in favour of............ because this will help to eliminate child pornography.
So what goes in the blank? Harsher penalties for offenders? Treatment programs for consumers? Self defence lessons for children? I have to readily admit I have no idea as while the idea of child porn makes my skin crawl because of my easy default “I am against it” view I haven’t given it any further thought. I have no idea what generates the demand, I don’t know where it is made etc. etc.
So without getting lost in a debate on child porn, hopefully everyone who reads this agrees it is a bad idea and if you don’t please send me an email so I can report you to the authorities. My challenge for today is what are you against and stop framing your thinking as "against stuff" and ask yourself what are you for that will achieve your objective of eliminating that which you are against.
Another for example a lot of people would say they are against increased CO2 emissions, which is an easy idea to defeat (it will stifle growth, kill people in the third world, requires concerted global actions that will not happen etc). However if you are in favour of an increasing proportion of our energy needs coming from renewable sources it is a much stronger argument, what can your opponents say? Renewable energy is bad?
So accentuate the positive, eliminate being against stuff.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Let The Hindsight Begin
And a lot of hand wringing and moral outrage and some notable cheering. I am of course referring to the American execution of Osama Bin Laden. And no I didn’t choose the word execution carelessly that is in my mind what happened and frankly I don’t care that much that the chap is dead but I am interested in some of the reactions from around the world.
First let's remind ourselves that while he may have been a great friend, husband and father for all I know publicly at least he was not a nice bloke and he started the events that lead to his death. Originally by declaring war on the United States (which is probably regarded by most military experts as unwise at best). He then followed up by among other things arranging for the death of a bunch of US civilians. So perhaps we could just dismiss these folk as the casualties of war because as we know people get killed in wars. However I note that Mr Bin Laden ordered the death of his own people too (the pilots of the 911 planes were bound to die after all) and not just as a possible consequence of soldiers in battle but a guaranteed certainty. And I don’t know a huge amount about it but I suspect he wasn’t a great spokes person for Islam either and was probably corrupting the words of the Koran to suit his own ends. So all in all a lying, murdering, war lord with scant regard for human life, i.e. not a nice guy.
So why the hand wringing and moral outrage? Is it back to this whole idea that we shouldn’t kill people? Well if you care to read my Murder is Wrong? Entry I think we can put that idea to bed, we routinely kill people for all sorts of reasons, which I admit doesn’t necessarily make it right but it is a bit late to start weeping into your chardonnay over this guy of all the potential candidates.
“He didn’t get a fair trial” is another comment I have heard. Well true but let’s be serious he confessed over and over in personal taped video messages etc, would there really have been an alternative outcome? OK so OJ Simpson got off but do we really think Osama was gonna wriggle out of this one? No I didn’t think so.
“If the Americans can just go around killing people they don’t like without due process what sort of world will we end up with?” Well the one we have now as far as I can tell. Do we really think this is the first politically motivated assassination that the Americans have ever carried out? Never mind a bunch of other people and nations.
“Some people will be upset by him being killed” and variations on this theme. Well in the words of Homer Simpson “D’oh” Hopefully those same “upset” people will think twice before joining in on his game lest they suffer the same fate.
But any way why the hand wringing, after all according to Osama isn’t dying a martyrs death in the service of god the greatest thing you can do? Well this seems to be a case of “be careful what you wish for” as his wish appears to have been granted.
First let's remind ourselves that while he may have been a great friend, husband and father for all I know publicly at least he was not a nice bloke and he started the events that lead to his death. Originally by declaring war on the United States (which is probably regarded by most military experts as unwise at best). He then followed up by among other things arranging for the death of a bunch of US civilians. So perhaps we could just dismiss these folk as the casualties of war because as we know people get killed in wars. However I note that Mr Bin Laden ordered the death of his own people too (the pilots of the 911 planes were bound to die after all) and not just as a possible consequence of soldiers in battle but a guaranteed certainty. And I don’t know a huge amount about it but I suspect he wasn’t a great spokes person for Islam either and was probably corrupting the words of the Koran to suit his own ends. So all in all a lying, murdering, war lord with scant regard for human life, i.e. not a nice guy.
So why the hand wringing and moral outrage? Is it back to this whole idea that we shouldn’t kill people? Well if you care to read my Murder is Wrong? Entry I think we can put that idea to bed, we routinely kill people for all sorts of reasons, which I admit doesn’t necessarily make it right but it is a bit late to start weeping into your chardonnay over this guy of all the potential candidates.
“He didn’t get a fair trial” is another comment I have heard. Well true but let’s be serious he confessed over and over in personal taped video messages etc, would there really have been an alternative outcome? OK so OJ Simpson got off but do we really think Osama was gonna wriggle out of this one? No I didn’t think so.
“If the Americans can just go around killing people they don’t like without due process what sort of world will we end up with?” Well the one we have now as far as I can tell. Do we really think this is the first politically motivated assassination that the Americans have ever carried out? Never mind a bunch of other people and nations.
“Some people will be upset by him being killed” and variations on this theme. Well in the words of Homer Simpson “D’oh” Hopefully those same “upset” people will think twice before joining in on his game lest they suffer the same fate.
But any way why the hand wringing, after all according to Osama isn’t dying a martyrs death in the service of god the greatest thing you can do? Well this seems to be a case of “be careful what you wish for” as his wish appears to have been granted.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Left, Right, March
As they say a week is a long time in politics and recent weeks have shown the truth of this axiom with the rise from the dead of ACT and the creation of the Mana party to add a second “Maori” party to the mix.
This once again raised the whole left vs right issue in the public arena with ACT being labelled as a party of failed Neo Liberal politics and Right Wing ideologs. I think the chances of the users of those phrases having a good grasp on their meaning is likely to be low never mind the people hearing these “slogans”. But it was a clear attempt by some people to paint them as right wing extremists who would do terrible things if they ever got any power.
This right versus left debate is a constant mystery to me. Given that there are intelligent people on each side of the debate (and as much as each side would like to pretend otherwise there are) equally skilled and educated and dealing with the same set of facts (eg economic indicators or data on education etc) how do we constantly come up with such opposing views on the best way forward.
Well my first culprit is single issue ism as represented by The Mana party, their stated goal is the advancement of Maori. Which sounds fine especially when they trot out the predictable statistics about the high crime, low employment, high poverty, low educational achievement etc that ascribe to Maori. But what is unsaid is advancement at the expense of whom as by definition they don’t care about any other group. And assuming we can engineer some win win outcomes so no one is disadvantaged, what is the Mana party policy on censorship or scientific research e.g. non Maori issues. To take a more substantive issue what is the Mana policy on roading as presumably there is no advancement of Maori per se in better (or worse) roads. So without the annoying need to worry about others they can promote policy that doesn’t really make sense in a total solution, to take a silly example they could promote separate lanes for Maori on Auckland motorways to provide better transport options for Maori, over all this is silly but from a Mana party point of view perfectly fine.
I mention this as it seems to me that there is a lot of single issue ism on the left wing of politics in my mind, the criticism of ACT most often trotted out is that there policies are not good for poor people and we need to do more for the “bottom of the heap”. They of course would deny this as they have a view that their policies are good for all. So without getting into the policy argument this is another example of single issue ism, promoting the bottom of the heap is no different than a suggestion that anyone earning over $200k has probably done enough and shouldn’t pay tax. Supporting poor people is more morally justifiable and therefore has a higher feel good factor.
A recent example of this was Labour suggesting that GST be eliminated from “basic food” as a way to help the less well off make ends meet in tough economic times. So this sounds good right, a policy to help poor folk but overlooking a raft of difficulties in defining basic food, they failed to articulate where the additional revenue would come from to cover the new hole they would create in the governments revenues.
So let’s stamp out single issue ism, which when you listen applies to a lot of things people promote, challenge them to explain the full consequences of their idea, who benefits and who pays and what behaviours might this promote. For example cereal would probably make the list for “basic food” but does this include Cafe style muesli or sugar laden coco pops (a chocolate milkshake only crunchy according to the manufacturer) If there was a 15% price advantage the manufacturers would be trying hard to ensure they were.
This once again raised the whole left vs right issue in the public arena with ACT being labelled as a party of failed Neo Liberal politics and Right Wing ideologs. I think the chances of the users of those phrases having a good grasp on their meaning is likely to be low never mind the people hearing these “slogans”. But it was a clear attempt by some people to paint them as right wing extremists who would do terrible things if they ever got any power.
This right versus left debate is a constant mystery to me. Given that there are intelligent people on each side of the debate (and as much as each side would like to pretend otherwise there are) equally skilled and educated and dealing with the same set of facts (eg economic indicators or data on education etc) how do we constantly come up with such opposing views on the best way forward.
Well my first culprit is single issue ism as represented by The Mana party, their stated goal is the advancement of Maori. Which sounds fine especially when they trot out the predictable statistics about the high crime, low employment, high poverty, low educational achievement etc that ascribe to Maori. But what is unsaid is advancement at the expense of whom as by definition they don’t care about any other group. And assuming we can engineer some win win outcomes so no one is disadvantaged, what is the Mana party policy on censorship or scientific research e.g. non Maori issues. To take a more substantive issue what is the Mana policy on roading as presumably there is no advancement of Maori per se in better (or worse) roads. So without the annoying need to worry about others they can promote policy that doesn’t really make sense in a total solution, to take a silly example they could promote separate lanes for Maori on Auckland motorways to provide better transport options for Maori, over all this is silly but from a Mana party point of view perfectly fine.
I mention this as it seems to me that there is a lot of single issue ism on the left wing of politics in my mind, the criticism of ACT most often trotted out is that there policies are not good for poor people and we need to do more for the “bottom of the heap”. They of course would deny this as they have a view that their policies are good for all. So without getting into the policy argument this is another example of single issue ism, promoting the bottom of the heap is no different than a suggestion that anyone earning over $200k has probably done enough and shouldn’t pay tax. Supporting poor people is more morally justifiable and therefore has a higher feel good factor.
A recent example of this was Labour suggesting that GST be eliminated from “basic food” as a way to help the less well off make ends meet in tough economic times. So this sounds good right, a policy to help poor folk but overlooking a raft of difficulties in defining basic food, they failed to articulate where the additional revenue would come from to cover the new hole they would create in the governments revenues.
So let’s stamp out single issue ism, which when you listen applies to a lot of things people promote, challenge them to explain the full consequences of their idea, who benefits and who pays and what behaviours might this promote. For example cereal would probably make the list for “basic food” but does this include Cafe style muesli or sugar laden coco pops (a chocolate milkshake only crunchy according to the manufacturer) If there was a 15% price advantage the manufacturers would be trying hard to ensure they were.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Teach a man to fish...
So I was listening to the radio and heard a young woman talking about eliminating poverty in the Pacific, which included in her mind all the countries that boarded the Pacific. So full marks for ambition as that is quite a bit of territory to cover and I couldn’t help admiring the energy and enthusiasm she was bringing to her project.
At this point I would like to say she is doing a lot more to help in this area than I am ever going to and all efforts to help ones fellow humans should be applauded and encouraged but........ (bet you saw that coming right)
........ she was, in general terms, talking about giving poor people stuff as the solution to the problem, she spoke of hoping she could persuade governments and others to forgive debt so that these poor nations weren’t paying “crippling” interest costs instead of using the money to better themselves. She seemed to be oblivious to the fact that the countries had presumably spent the borrowed money on something which presumably didn’t help much, not sure why giving them more money would change anything.
She talked about an “army” of volunteers giving their time and skill to complete projects within the country like building a pharmacy, or a school or a hospital. Which is a great plan to a point given that presumably there is not pharmacy etc at the location that you choose, however this is just another variation on the give the poor people stuff view of the world, not to mention potentially naive about the cost effectiveness of such an idea.
Is it effective for me to ship myself to Cambodia (for example) for a period of time in order to deliver my skills to the local people. Either I deliver my specialist skills which are likely in low demand in an under developed country (just about no matter what your skills are unless you happen to be a builder or a farmer or a doctor) or for me to be an amateur builder etc where my main claim to usefulness is that I am a willing pair of hands. Frankly if willing to help is in short supply in the group you are trying to help then give up straight away.
So one idea that did resonate was of course the building of a school(s) and presumably the associated staffing and materials that a school needs. We see time and time again that education raises all manner of outcomes and is the foundation for progress. I don’t understand why this idea is so often over looked it is after all the whole basis for the success of the human race, it is because we learned “stuff” that we progressed.
One of the really huge things we learned to do was farm, and most importantly produce enough food in an efficient manner to allow us to turn our attention to other tasks like making better weapons to wipe out the other tribe we didn’t like, but ignoring that for the moment. This is something NZ does really well (farming) so as a focus we should teach the “poor” folk to be better farmers. Now I am aware that not all poor people are rural peasants but there sure are a chunk to be making a start with. We can leave the city folk to others there are enough poor folk for us all to have plenty.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime, not to mention his kids etc. So lets stop giving poor people stuff, lets trying walking beside them to help them out. Having said that the radio guest is still doing a lot more than most of us.
At this point I would like to say she is doing a lot more to help in this area than I am ever going to and all efforts to help ones fellow humans should be applauded and encouraged but........ (bet you saw that coming right)
........ she was, in general terms, talking about giving poor people stuff as the solution to the problem, she spoke of hoping she could persuade governments and others to forgive debt so that these poor nations weren’t paying “crippling” interest costs instead of using the money to better themselves. She seemed to be oblivious to the fact that the countries had presumably spent the borrowed money on something which presumably didn’t help much, not sure why giving them more money would change anything.
She talked about an “army” of volunteers giving their time and skill to complete projects within the country like building a pharmacy, or a school or a hospital. Which is a great plan to a point given that presumably there is not pharmacy etc at the location that you choose, however this is just another variation on the give the poor people stuff view of the world, not to mention potentially naive about the cost effectiveness of such an idea.
Is it effective for me to ship myself to Cambodia (for example) for a period of time in order to deliver my skills to the local people. Either I deliver my specialist skills which are likely in low demand in an under developed country (just about no matter what your skills are unless you happen to be a builder or a farmer or a doctor) or for me to be an amateur builder etc where my main claim to usefulness is that I am a willing pair of hands. Frankly if willing to help is in short supply in the group you are trying to help then give up straight away.
So one idea that did resonate was of course the building of a school(s) and presumably the associated staffing and materials that a school needs. We see time and time again that education raises all manner of outcomes and is the foundation for progress. I don’t understand why this idea is so often over looked it is after all the whole basis for the success of the human race, it is because we learned “stuff” that we progressed.
One of the really huge things we learned to do was farm, and most importantly produce enough food in an efficient manner to allow us to turn our attention to other tasks like making better weapons to wipe out the other tribe we didn’t like, but ignoring that for the moment. This is something NZ does really well (farming) so as a focus we should teach the “poor” folk to be better farmers. Now I am aware that not all poor people are rural peasants but there sure are a chunk to be making a start with. We can leave the city folk to others there are enough poor folk for us all to have plenty.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime, not to mention his kids etc. So lets stop giving poor people stuff, lets trying walking beside them to help them out. Having said that the radio guest is still doing a lot more than most of us.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Hey Tiki
So it seems like a bad week for individual rights and freedoms, in the news has been the arrest of Tiki Tanne is a singer apparently of some renown, I say apparently as before he got arrested I had no idea he existed. I doubt he would be bothered by that as I don’t think I am his target demographic.
He was arrested for “disorderly behaviour likely to cause violence to start or continue” which is my first point, isn’t this a somewhat doubtful charge? The phrase “likely to cause” is a bit problematic for me as you appear to be arresting someone for something that might happen in the future. If the charge was “possessing a car likely to be driven above the speed limit” how would we feel about it. Should we be arresting someone for something they are “likely” to do.
The behaviour in question was singing a song which I believe is called and presumably has as part of the lyrics “F... the police”. Exercising what could only be termed as dubious judgement Tiki did this while some members of the police force were in the bar. Although unknown to me as I wasn’t there the likely sequence of events after that point is probably fairly obvious.
So what happened to Article 14 of the Bill or Rights? Which says, “Freedom of expression: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.” What happened to Tiki’s freedom of expression?
Now as with all things there are limits to your right to Freedom of expression and although I don’t like the phrase you can’t go around spewing forth “hate speech” which is where the above charge comes in, not withstanding my disquiet about its drafting.
However the song in total is not a pleasant one and not my taste however it is talking about the experience of black Americans dealing with police officers and implies racism within the American police force and the line in question is an openly rebellious retort to what the writer perceives as injustice. In context that doesn’t really sound like something to be to bothered about. It isn’t after all even talking about the NZ Police force.
But ignoring all of that a bigger question for me is how we have ended up with a society that finds this sort of material acceptable. No matter how you dress it up it is at the very least disrespectful or impolite to be singing such a song, but I suspect it represents at least to a part of our society a disenfranchisement from the main stream as represented by police officers and other society authority figures. Isn’t that the real problem, because if they don’t respect the police who have powers I will never have then what’s the chance that the rest of us will be respected by this group. And this disconnected group is growing and not simply represented by those that listen to Rap music. This is the social ill, societal fracture and it won’t be fixed by throwing Rap singers into Jail.
To prove that we are not the only ones looking at symptoms rather than causes, France has this week outlawed Muslim women covering their faces in public. Hands up any one who can thinking of something wrong with that idea. Anyone without a hand up, I don’t think you are paying attention.
He was arrested for “disorderly behaviour likely to cause violence to start or continue” which is my first point, isn’t this a somewhat doubtful charge? The phrase “likely to cause” is a bit problematic for me as you appear to be arresting someone for something that might happen in the future. If the charge was “possessing a car likely to be driven above the speed limit” how would we feel about it. Should we be arresting someone for something they are “likely” to do.
The behaviour in question was singing a song which I believe is called and presumably has as part of the lyrics “F... the police”. Exercising what could only be termed as dubious judgement Tiki did this while some members of the police force were in the bar. Although unknown to me as I wasn’t there the likely sequence of events after that point is probably fairly obvious.
So what happened to Article 14 of the Bill or Rights? Which says, “Freedom of expression: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.” What happened to Tiki’s freedom of expression?
Now as with all things there are limits to your right to Freedom of expression and although I don’t like the phrase you can’t go around spewing forth “hate speech” which is where the above charge comes in, not withstanding my disquiet about its drafting.
However the song in total is not a pleasant one and not my taste however it is talking about the experience of black Americans dealing with police officers and implies racism within the American police force and the line in question is an openly rebellious retort to what the writer perceives as injustice. In context that doesn’t really sound like something to be to bothered about. It isn’t after all even talking about the NZ Police force.
But ignoring all of that a bigger question for me is how we have ended up with a society that finds this sort of material acceptable. No matter how you dress it up it is at the very least disrespectful or impolite to be singing such a song, but I suspect it represents at least to a part of our society a disenfranchisement from the main stream as represented by police officers and other society authority figures. Isn’t that the real problem, because if they don’t respect the police who have powers I will never have then what’s the chance that the rest of us will be respected by this group. And this disconnected group is growing and not simply represented by those that listen to Rap music. This is the social ill, societal fracture and it won’t be fixed by throwing Rap singers into Jail.
To prove that we are not the only ones looking at symptoms rather than causes, France has this week outlawed Muslim women covering their faces in public. Hands up any one who can thinking of something wrong with that idea. Anyone without a hand up, I don’t think you are paying attention.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Libya-rate us please.
So what’s the story with the “coalition of the willing” bombing Libya?
Yes I know what the UN resolution said, that it was to protect civilians from being killed by Gaddafi’s armed forces, but really is that what is going on here?
So I would be the first to admit that I don’t know much about Libya or about Colonel Gaddafi except what I have read over the years in the media. Their biggest claim to fame seems to be sponsoring the terrorists who conducted the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie.
A brief review of the history of the country is typical of countries in the area, given that it borders on the Mediterranean it has been tied up with Greek and Roman conquest and all that sort of stuff but more latterly has been a colony of Italy, when African colonies where popular with European powers and then when they got bored with the place they put in place a king who was then the subject of a coup by our old friend Colonel Gaddafi in 1969.
Then with a volatile mix of Muslim fundamentalism and a socialist agenda of some sort he set about being the world’s pain in the butt. Usually such behaviours are short lived but with the handy backing of oil revenues, which I cynically observe the west never deprived him of, Colonel Gaddafi kept up this adolescent acting out for some 30 odd years.
But of recent years he has been behaving and the West has slowly welcomed him back into the old boys club with Britain famously finding an excuse to release the Lockerbie bomber because he was dying of cancer, later miraculously cured by the fantastic medical system in Libya (shouldn’t they send him back now he is better?) And including Libya serving on the UN security council in 2007 and the USA deleting Libya from its list of terrorist states.
However old times appear not to be forgotten, faced with a “popular” uprising (meaning one that is large enough to attract media attention from the journalists that missed out on the Tunisia and Egypt scoop) the “coalition of the willing” has joined in on the side of the “rebels”.
So this is where I come a bit unstuck, yes we know that the government in Libya is unelected, mind you they have never ever had an elected government so I am not sure how that is such a big deal. The country was being reformed through contact and trade etc and Colonel Gaddafi had renounced the use of violence and seemed to be sticking with that, hence the thawing of east west relations. Then because some of the citizens started shooting people (we seem to overlook the fact that although they are poorly organised and not much of a fighting force we are not talking about the rebels being a bunch of peaceful demonstrators) and the government decided to use force to sort them out, the west suddenly took sides and started bombing things and people.
If I were to hit the streets in NZ brandishing a weapon or otherwise making a pain of myself, I too would meet some force. Firstly in the form of the boys and girls in blue and if I and my mates were being too much trouble I may even meet the green crew. Because trying to overthrow the government by force in this country is considered to be treason, much the same as I suspect it is in Libya. Yes, yes I remember they are unelected and so there is no other method of getting rid of the Libyan government, but we aren’t very consistent here are we.
What about Fiji, don’t see any one bombing them. What about the IRA? not too many US jets supporting them (Libya did so that might be the problem). And others besides
And what do these “rebels” stand for? There is no cohesive leadership structure and no one is guaranteeing that they will hold elections either. Some Muslim states don’t have a great track record of supporting freedom of opinion and with or without the Colonel Libya is still a muslim state.
But I guess it is time he got his just deserts for all that trouble he caused for all those years, pity about the peasants that get killed while their leaders play international chess.
Yes I know what the UN resolution said, that it was to protect civilians from being killed by Gaddafi’s armed forces, but really is that what is going on here?
So I would be the first to admit that I don’t know much about Libya or about Colonel Gaddafi except what I have read over the years in the media. Their biggest claim to fame seems to be sponsoring the terrorists who conducted the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie.
A brief review of the history of the country is typical of countries in the area, given that it borders on the Mediterranean it has been tied up with Greek and Roman conquest and all that sort of stuff but more latterly has been a colony of Italy, when African colonies where popular with European powers and then when they got bored with the place they put in place a king who was then the subject of a coup by our old friend Colonel Gaddafi in 1969.
Then with a volatile mix of Muslim fundamentalism and a socialist agenda of some sort he set about being the world’s pain in the butt. Usually such behaviours are short lived but with the handy backing of oil revenues, which I cynically observe the west never deprived him of, Colonel Gaddafi kept up this adolescent acting out for some 30 odd years.
But of recent years he has been behaving and the West has slowly welcomed him back into the old boys club with Britain famously finding an excuse to release the Lockerbie bomber because he was dying of cancer, later miraculously cured by the fantastic medical system in Libya (shouldn’t they send him back now he is better?) And including Libya serving on the UN security council in 2007 and the USA deleting Libya from its list of terrorist states.
However old times appear not to be forgotten, faced with a “popular” uprising (meaning one that is large enough to attract media attention from the journalists that missed out on the Tunisia and Egypt scoop) the “coalition of the willing” has joined in on the side of the “rebels”.
So this is where I come a bit unstuck, yes we know that the government in Libya is unelected, mind you they have never ever had an elected government so I am not sure how that is such a big deal. The country was being reformed through contact and trade etc and Colonel Gaddafi had renounced the use of violence and seemed to be sticking with that, hence the thawing of east west relations. Then because some of the citizens started shooting people (we seem to overlook the fact that although they are poorly organised and not much of a fighting force we are not talking about the rebels being a bunch of peaceful demonstrators) and the government decided to use force to sort them out, the west suddenly took sides and started bombing things and people.
If I were to hit the streets in NZ brandishing a weapon or otherwise making a pain of myself, I too would meet some force. Firstly in the form of the boys and girls in blue and if I and my mates were being too much trouble I may even meet the green crew. Because trying to overthrow the government by force in this country is considered to be treason, much the same as I suspect it is in Libya. Yes, yes I remember they are unelected and so there is no other method of getting rid of the Libyan government, but we aren’t very consistent here are we.
What about Fiji, don’t see any one bombing them. What about the IRA? not too many US jets supporting them (Libya did so that might be the problem). And others besides
And what do these “rebels” stand for? There is no cohesive leadership structure and no one is guaranteeing that they will hold elections either. Some Muslim states don’t have a great track record of supporting freedom of opinion and with or without the Colonel Libya is still a muslim state.
But I guess it is time he got his just deserts for all that trouble he caused for all those years, pity about the peasants that get killed while their leaders play international chess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)