Money can't buy you love..

The Teachers negotiations with government are back in the news with another impasse in negotiations and more threatened strike action.

This is not peculiar to them right now and it seems to be a period of discontent among workers at the moment with teachers, doctors and nurses among others either having been on strike or threatening to strike. The claim is always the same we are either underpaid or our working conditions are unacceptable. (Which is the same thing dressed up differently)

A big part of this discontent seems to revolve around the current pay levels not delivering the level of lifestyle that these groups believe themselves entitled to.

So firstly some facts, the groups I mentioned are paid around $50k per annum (as a wide sweeping generalisation with some paid quite a bit more and a few being paid a small amount less) So how does place you in the NZ scheme of things? Quite well as it turns out, referring to the IRD for the most recent stats I could find http://www.ird.govt.nz/aboutir/external-stats/income-distribution-income-bands this puts them in the top 20% of income earners in NZ. So it is impossible to argue that they are poorly paid relative to others.

So assuming for a moment that you pay packet dictates your lifestyle then the alternative explanation is that they think they should be higher up than the to 20% and real life is failing to meet their expectations and this is leading to unhappiness as manifested by their demands.

So what we have is an external item (your pay packet) and the agency that pays you (in this case mostly the government) controlling your happiness levels.

I think this happens to a lot of us and it is a major source of dissatisfaction in our lives. It is a comparative happiness at work, we judge ourselves by those around us and if we come up short we tend to be unhappy. The important part of that phrase is “those around us” so for example if we lived in Cuba where cars are hard to get and we had one when none of our neighbours did then I suspect we would be happy about that. However in NZ we almost have a car each (2.7M in 2007) so having any old car doesn’t make a lot of us happy, having a “good” car does and again it depends who you are what that means, for some it is a tricked out Subaru WRX for others it is the latest Mercedes.

But in all cases we are judging our worth and associated happiness by the people around us. Now if you happen to be at the top of your local tree then this will work fine for you but most of us never are and in fact as soon as we are we tend to move trees and start comparing ourselves to a “higher” group.

Now based on my limited knowledge of the world’s religions and philosophical musings I have never encountered a system that suggests fulfilment comes from external sources, all of them to the best of my knowledge tend to suggest we look to ourselves and our inner person for fulfilment and happiness. This is often expressed in spiritual terms within religion and in “moral codes” in more secular writings but the message is the same, happiness comes from within.

This makes sense to me as the world, the people in it, the weather, even my dog are only within limited control by me but presumably I do control me. So I can look to my employer to deliver happiness to me (via a bigger pay packet or whatever) or I can look to my motivations and be content that being in the top 20% isn’t that bad.

So I have heard it said that “Money can’t buy you love, but it can buy you a better class of misery” and I think that is true in the way it was intended to be read and also the way I would suggest you read it. No external source can make you happy for long.

I am a Rock

I am a rock or so sang Simon & Garfunkel in their 1966 hit (well it got to number 3 does that count) For those that don’t know that song and given that it is approaching 50 years old there may be some, it discuss an individual who has decided to close himself off from love and friendship and become “a rock”.


This of course is unusual within the context of the human condition because we are by nature social creatures, we seem to have a built in need to communicate and interact with others and people who choose a solitary life are not well regarded by the rest of us. Being referred to as a “loner” is seldom found in a complimentary sentence.

On the other hand all of us exhibit a bit of the “Greed is good” attitude of Gordon Gecko from the 1980’s film Wall Street (now that I have started with the old cultural references why stop). To paraphrase the theme of this speech he credits “greed” for love, life, etc with being the driving force of humanity. To gather to oneself that which you desire if you will.

To put it another way there is a bit of selfishness in most of us, which at a minimum desires that those we love are first among equals.

But the people who have impact on us and that we eulogise are the unselfish, Jesus, Ghandi, Mother Theresa and the homeless guy on the TV the other night who gave a silly TV presenter one of his few dollars when he asked for some cash as a prank. To name but a few.

And what about Eugene Gifford Grace, who I hear you ask, he was the President of Bethlehem Steel for almost thirty years from 1916 – 1945 at which time this was the second biggest company in America employing 283,000 workers and Eugene was the highest paid person in America (the taxes at that time were crippling claiming two thirds of what he got paid). So in his day a prominent and powerful man who most of us have never heard of because he was not focused on helping his fellow man he was a business man. Before any one thinks I am maligning Eugene I am not, apart from a business man he was also very philanthropic and supported many charities and the like.

My point is that we are social beings by choice and we cherish the people who improve our society at the most human level and scale.

So why then do I get the feeling that we are forgetting the social contract which is implied in this arrangement?

That is that you need to put back in at least as much as you take out or the system won’t work, or it may continue to work but you are relying on someone else to put in additional effort to make up for your lack of effort.

If we think of our society as a bank account to maintain status quo then as much money needs to go in as is drawn out, otherwise we are eroding our balance (quality of our society) if we all contribute a little extra then the balance will increase and our “societal capital” will improve. Too much “greed is good” and not enough Ghandi and the society we live in becomes very unpleasant.

My challenge for today is what did you give back today, it doesn’t need to be a big thing because all the little things add up, just think about your contribution to your corner of the world are you a contributor or a spender.

Murder is Wrong?

It is unlikely that many people would disagree with the title phrased as a statement but the idea of it as a question will vex some.

Most of us (including me) would hardly stop to consider the question "is murder wrong" as it seems such an obvious statement. But why?

Why is it obvious is the question.

Clearly society doesn’t have a problem with killing per se as we routinely involve ourselves in wars with NZ troops currently involved in at least a couple of armed conflicts at this time. We sometimes make heroes out of those who involve themselves in active service such as Willie Apiata (who has succeeded Sir Edmund Hillary as “most trusted New Zealander” according to his Wiki entry and he certainly looks like a great successor) however we need to recognise the Willie was not “playing tiddlywinks” and received his VC because people were shooting at him and more than likely he shot back.

Some societies also sanction the death penalty for certain crimes (including NZ who still retains the death penalty for treason for some odd reason) most notably of course for murder which seems a touch ironic.

So in the right circumstances killing people is ok but not murdering them. So is the difference knowing the possible outcome, i.e. you go to war you know you might get killed, you do the crime you know the potential punishment so therefore these things are ok.

What about civilians that get killed in wars, presumably then that is not ok. Clearly the world was very concerned with Hitler’s attempts to wipe out Jews, presumably because they were innocent civilians who did not volunteer to be part of his war. On the other hand many innocent lives were presumably lost by the bombing of Hamburg and Dresden during WWII. This campaign was carried out with the explicit objective or weakening the populations resolve to keep fighting. i.e. civilians were the targets. Of course we all know about the atomic bombing of Japan. These examples seem to be covered by the greater good theory, i.e. some civilians killed today will save the lives of many others tomorrow. So killings ok as long as you have a good reason.

Which extends to self defence, it’s ok to kill people if they intend to kill you a variation on the “good reason” school of killing. Or assassinations where you are a political power and your world view clashes with another political power.

So to sum up killing is ok, if you are politically powerful or if you participate in an activity where you know you can get killed and or the person killing you has a good reason. (glad we cleared that up)

But what about gangs? We are against them killing each other even though they presumably know the rules, after all dealing in drugs and other illegal activities has always carried a high risk factor.

Yet even the murder of a gang member by another gang member strikes us as wrong (and to be fair war etc strike a lot of people as wrong too) but there doesn’t seem to be any reason for this other than perhaps vested self interest. We don’t want to get murdered so we see it as wrong as we might be next if it was tolerated. That seems a little simplistic but I can’t identify a reason other than that.

Lucky for me many other wise minds over the centuries have pondered the same or similar questions when trying to establish the basis for our ethics or distinguishing right from wrong so not having an answer puts me in good company at least.

Multi coloured people

In 1988 the band When the Cats Away had a hit with a song called Melting Pot. The song is an anthem for the "why can't we all just get along" school of thought and suggested that if we chucked everyone in to a pot and produced "multi coloured people by the score" then life would be sweet.


It seems for any number of reasons (not least the shortage of a big enough pot) we are a long way from racial harmony.

Paul Henry's (an insignificant but well known broadcaster) recent question of the Prime Minister about the next Governor General "are you going to choose someone who looks and talks like a New Zealander" has provoked predictable and justified outrage. The current Governor General Sir Anand Satyanand is of Indian decent and I can't recall what he sounds like but judging from Henry's comments perhaps he has an accent of sorts. He was, as the Prime Minister, was quick to point out born here making him very much a Kiwi. (as an aside while recently watching a TV show a Ngapuhi representative drew a distinction between Kiwis and Tangata Whenua with Kiwis as a lower term in his mind. If we didn’t already know this shows that potential racism works in all directions)

The problem is I knew exactly what Paul Henry meant and as I don't consider myself a racist this left me a little disturbed at my own reaction. I mean we have had lots of pakeha men in the role, some pakeha women and "even" a Maori bloke none of whom gave me any pause for thought but when Henry said it a little part of me understood his comment.

This set me to think about the whole question of racism and why it persists, we all do it (yes even you dear reader) what about "Asians are terrible drivers", "white men can't jump" or probably more correctly "white men can't dance" "Maoris’ are all happy go lucky types" Yep we all do it and for the fathers of daughters out there how would you feel if they brought the "wrong" coloured boyfriend home. (for some reason we are less concerned with the choices of our sons) It’s a lot like being ok with gays and then finding out your son is gay. You may well accept it but are you sure there won't be a little part of you that reacts.

Now granted some folk are a lot more liberal than others and I can already hear the objections from a number of people to the idea that there is a little bit of this in all of us. (especially that boy friend one)

And let me state once again I don't think I am a racist and I don't condone the idea I am just asking the question why it seems at some level to be hard wired into us.

Certainly the "Asians are bad drivers" type of racism is potentially just a generalisation which helps us deal with groups. Equally you could say "all Canterbury rugby supporters are bad losers" which has been my personal experience but I put that down to them not having enough practice at losing. Or all Aucklander’s are.... (well, fill in your South Island prejudice of choice) so that doesn't seem to bad.

And then potentially it is the selfish gene theory at work, our genes wish to survive and thrive which means in some ways we want carbon copies of ourselves, think how pleased parents are to see parts of themselves in their kids (understandable for males perhaps but females seem to enjoy this also). So people who look significantly different to ourselves are a challenge to that.

Your own history, by which I really mean peer group influences, could be the cause, obviously if the people you hang around with express racist views you are much more likely to pick up these points of views yourself. We only need look at some of the long running conflicts in the world that are divided on race lines to see historic influence at work.

Skin colour and appearance are also often tied to cultural differences so potentially it is not that Anand is an Indian it is just that we don't agree with his culture. Discrimination on the basis of having cultural differences makes sense because presumably if we did agree we would do as he does so there would be no difference.

The problem with Anand is that if I read his CV without his name attached to it, I would like as not assume he was a middle class white guy (ie the same as me but way more successful). Born in Auckland, educated at Sacred Heart College then Otago and Auckland Uni, successful time in the law rising to become a Judge, married to Susan with 3 children, interested in reading, travel and entertaining.

So all this proves is one of those old and wise ideas is still true before we judge one another we should get to know them.

God Knows Best

My local pub had a guest beer on tap recently called God Knows Best and a fine drop it was too so perhaps in terms of beer he does although I suspect he left it to some mortal to actually brew the stuff.

This phrase sprang to mind again when listening to coverage of the Popes current visit to the UK, which as these things go is generally being hailed as a success. I was particularly struck by a speech he made in Scotland which has turned into a bit of a theme throughout his visit, it was a plea to ensure that religion (presumably his) is not excluded from decision making in an "increasingly secular society" He reminded his audience that the current legal system and laws were founded on Christian values and that this tradition needed to continue as the freedom promised by secularism was illusory and it merely provided people the "freedom to harm themselves"

So my first thought is that this Pope, who as a previous member of Hitler youth should know better, seems to have limited grasp of history. In particular the history of his own church and religion in general and the misery it has visited upon millions of people, never mind the harm it has wrought.
As a very recent example during his current visit he has felt the need to apologies for the catholic churches part in child sex abuse but seems to fail to recognise that the very "do as I say" attitude that he is promoting was a significant factor in why these particular events came to pass and why the church felt the need to systematically cover these up. The rise in secularism that he so bemoans is exactly why we even know about these events, as the church has lost its all powerful grip on people's lives they have felt safe enough to come forward and let the light shine on these dark times.

It is also condescending to believe that only Christian values are worth considering in the drafting of the rules that govern our societies, especially as an ever decreasing number of people necessarily subscribe to these values. This seems to me to be a simple plea for the once powerful to remain or become powerful again.

 On the other hand we can all be prone to a bit of "I know best isim" especially when we see someone doing something that runs counter to our own belief system, so take up one of the Christian messages the Pope has forgotten and remember to be tolerant of the people you meet who do stuff you don't agree with, perhaps it is hunting and eating whales or maybe it is wearing a burka or letting prisoners vote. Whatever it is remember to apply the test of personal liberty versus societal contract rather than any adherence to an outdated dogma written ostensibly 2000 years ago when the world was quite a different place.

You only bury your mother once

So thankfully my mother is still alive and doing well, so is her mother so I have good genes on my maternal side at least for a long life.

The title was taken from a comment I heard on talk back radio and a women was relaying how incredibly hard it was for her and presumably most of us when we face that event. She talked of the absolute grief that overwhelmed her and said that two years down the road she felt she was still recovering. She observed at one point that she didn't know how to handle this event because "you only bury your mother once" Now having said that my mother is still alive I like most of us have still faced the death of a loved one and I am sure we can all understand how this lady was feeling.

The host of the radio program went on to observe that "rationally we all know that the person in the box doesn't want us to be sad but at times like this we don't really think rationally" Again I think this is a sentiment that we can all get on board with. Certainly if I was "in the box" I would not want people to be distraught with grief and certainly not for two years afterwards, especially if they were one of the people I loved in life. (OK so there is a small part of our ego who would like people to miss us a bit when we are gone as it validates our time on earth but other than that.)

So the two comments combined lead me to think about practicing being rational because you "only bury your mother once" and so in preparation for that event I wondered if it is important that we practice not letting our emotions overwhelm us and with some practice in the bank this might help us a bit when we face very difficult emotional moments. I am not crazy enough to think we can just rationalise away grief but it should help to realise that our loved one would still want us to be happy, if we remember that and believe it.

We all know that we can find ourselves saying things that we later regret, normally because we were angry or some other emotion has taken control of our tounges. Or that we react to situations and feel foolish later "in the cold light of day" etc. These are all opportunities to try and involve your rational self and put in some practice to help you through the tough times, not to mention the benefits of not having to deal with the aftermath of some ill advised comment made in anger.

The extreme version of this may well be found in the death of Seneca and event that has been much written about and is the subject of a number of famous art works. Seneca at one time was tutor to Nero (famously the emporer who fiddled while Rome burned or perhaps more relevant to this topic had his mother executed)Nero ordered Seneca to kill himself as he suspected him (probably wrongly) of being involved in a plot to kill him. Seneca was a student of Stoic philosophy which helped him meet his fate with calm resolution. This made him the poster child for Stoicism and gives rise to the label of stoic that we sometimes give to "stiff upper lip" types. In a sentance Stoicism teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions.

So I am not suggesting we all adopt Stoicism but I do think that there is some good in the idea that the rational can help with some of those "destructive emotions" such as fear, anger, depression etc and may help us with our grief when the time comes, as it will, for all of us.

Action, Crowd Reaction

So Newton told us that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, however he was refering to physics not people.

The recent Christchurch earthquake is an interesting case, clearly Newton was right on the physics front as all that action generated by the ground certainly caused a reaction with the buildings, roads, infastructure etc that it came in contact with. At this point I wish to say that I understand that a lot of peoples lives have been effected by the quake and I do feel for them however.....

That doesn't really account for the frenzy of fear, doubt, panic and over reaction we are witnessing on the TV and radio. We have people saying the can't sleep for worry, that they are moving out of town, some temporarily some suggesting permanently. That their lives have been permanenetly scared by this event etc.

I mean come on, this is completly silly, in the moment of the earthquake the fear and associated fight or flight response kicks in the juices flow and we act in a hyper mode of stress, increased heart rate etc. All of which can be very handy when a wall might fall on you at any moment and jumping quickly out of the way will save your life. The event lasted a few minutes or less at a guess (I wasn't there but I did feel it) and I will give you a couple of hours to calm down but after that the big reasoning brain should take over.

The likelyhood of aftershocks is high, however I understand that the first one is always the biggest (per a geology prof on the telly) and better yet you know they are coming so you can get ready. After that I suspect that the risk of another "big" quake (in quotes because it is all relative I guess) is the same as it every was (or probably less as my personal observation is they seem to be spread out in time) and that your level of panic should be the same as the day before the quake. I mean after all we live in a country created by two plates coming together this is a highly earthquake prone country.

Why then do so many people dwell on their feelings and completely disregard the rational response, also at times like this people who request rationality are likely to be branded as unfeeling and as I am at risk of that I feel the need to defend that position. Is it feeling to promote peoples fears as legitamate when they are not? Does this make them feel better? Can I feel empathy for your situation and loss without buying into your irational emotions? Well of course I can and acting rationally I am likely to be more useful to you. If a fireman comes to rescue me I could care less what he/she feels for me as long as they cooly and rationally do their job and help me out. Same thing isn't it?

But the media loves the drama, not much of a sound bite if someones says "well no one died so no real problem", on the other hand a distressed person grieving the loss of their property and vowing to head for the hills "before another one gets me" makes a much better image and so around it goes.

The worst example in my memory was the death of Lady Diana Spencer, the crazy scenes of people in major distress grieving for someone they didn't actually know will always be a head shaker for me.

Its a fine and good thing to have emotions but lets keep the big rational brain engaged which in the end should help us with our emotions. So do someone in Christchurch a favour ring them up and tell them the world is just the same as it was before and that you are thinking about moving to Christchurch as it should be about 100 years till there is another quake there. (rationally speaking of course)