Bullet-Pointed Inventory of The Battle of the Five Armies

So let me run through what I see as the major flaws/foibles and successes/strengths of the third and final Hobbit film, which we'll presume is PJ et al's *'lucky last' cinematic interpretation of JRR Tolkien's fantasies. These - with much 'after the fact' additional fleshing out - I am simply repeating in the exact order in which they occurred to me on Tuesday the 16th of December (New Zealand time), with a **plus or a **minus immediately preceding each one, signifying whether that point is to me on the positive or negative side of the ledger, i.e. a bouquet or a brickbat.

+Bilbo Baggins - Master of the (perfectly placed, carefully enunciated, and adeptly put) Understatement.

+Lotsa rather effective love metaphors (cf Song of Songs in the Good Book's Older Testament).

+Tauriel/Kili and Legolas/Thranduil were very carefully and effectively - if rather unTolkienesquely, let's be honest - portrayed.+Especially good characterization/character development of the three elves. 

+/-Alfrid (the Master of  Lake-town's #1 civil servant, courtier, PR consultant and general bootlicker): as in Hobbit film #2, very well done - but what became of/where'd his Master disappear to? (Or, as my brother informed me, was he in fact not vaporized by, but rather landed upon and squashed to death and a million odd smithereens, as Smaug impacted upon the Long Lake in his final death descent? Most probably.)

--The fabled Arkenstone itself? Not all that impressive; in fact I was distinctly unimpressed. For the very 'heart of the (Lonely) Mountain', surely PJ & Co could've come up with something, anything, much better, i.e. a gemstone - in colour, texture, shape and size, in sheer, pure outward glory, splendour and overall majesty - more truly befitting royal status? Would that have really been too much to ask? As a bare minimum any of Earth's present-day super-abundance of precious metals and crown jewels of say India or Burma, or some Middle Eastern emirate or caliphate even would've sufficed, one would have presumed. I mean, really. (As so often happens in my life - 'beset' by odd, bizarre serendipities, felicities, synchronicities or what some would merely term 'coincidences', but which I prefer to see as mini-Providences or even minor miracles (of a sort) - just a few minutes ago (4/1/2015) NZ TV One's nightly 6 p.m. News featured an item about a comet presently passing over Planet Earth and/or through its ionosphere: this little 'beastie' from outer space, named ***LoveJoy apparently, glowing with a stunning bright blue radiance like the most majestic, dazzling midday sky, is exactly, precisely, in every which way in fact what the Arkenstone ought to have looked like. So take good and proper note, Sir Peter, and realize what a little more time and effort could have done...transforming an utter fizzer into something to write home about. At least you got the general colour of the Mountain's 'Heart' right, though even that was a little fuzzy and hazy around the edges.)

-Bilbo oughta have become invisible during the major battle finale - again, as in Tolkien's original story; and not only for this reason, as Mr Baggins was quite obviously hardly any sort of a match for the various orc/goblin etc adversaries accosting, confronting and tackling him (and his associates and other allies) from all directions. (See similar remarks vis-a-vis Bilbo Baggins and the wolves/wargs at the very end of film #1.)

++(Cinematically) effective as in well wrought, powerfully portrayed battle royales - especially those between Azog and Thorin, and Bolg, Tauriel and Legolas. Yet, oddly enough, unlike the two earlier Hobbit and three Lord of the Rings films, in this particular instance it seemed somewhat appropriate, being, after all, effectively 'the Battle of the Five Armies' (and much more significantly, of course, of Smaug's demise). Surprisingly, for Peter Jackson, not overdone (in terms of what was 'necessary' to make the film, as they say, a 'goer'), and, as I say, if ever such high dudgeon-based action were justified, it was in this film (of the six). Though such fighting did probably absorb, when Smaug's death-dealing siege of Esgaroth is included, well over half this final film, the comparative portion of the book, by sharp contrast, actually constituted just under a sixth (less than 16%) of its contents, I've only now uncovered to my surprise; and for the barely three pages devoted to Smaug actually attacking Esgaroth, only seven measly pages concerns the topic/title of this final film, i.e. the battle of the five armies!) Not that I really find such warfare something I particularly enjoy, much less consider an apt or accurate reflection of Tolkien's relevant tomes (i.e. The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings), but if any of the six Hobbit/LOTR films seemingly deserved such treatment, one might have supposed it was this one. But once again, closer inspection proves vastly otherwise! (It wouldn't escape an observant reader of this and earlier posts just how much PJ et al's rendition of JRR's works has gradually, insidiously, imperceptibly lowered my otherwise once high expectations, so that as this grand finale has at last shown its head not only has mediocrity now apparently become the norm and trumped all in its inexorable path, Tolkien-Jackson devotees such as myself now indeed expect no more, and are thus almost content with that rather sad and sorry status quo.) How have the once mighty cinematographers fallen!

++Much more realistic (cf LOTR) in terms of the multiple deaths of the protagonists.

+/-Billy Connolly is well utilized - as far as he is in fact used - but strangely vanishes off the page in the various mini-battle finales (such as those aforementioned ones between both Azog and Bolg and 'the [various and assorted] goodies').

++Good - if rather belated - reversion to Tolkienesque ending - unlike LOTR. Hence much more realistic and true to JRR's tome, as in (again, cf the third LOTR film - not) Bilbo, much like Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry in Tolkien's The Return of the King, arriving home not to cheers, hurrahs and general, well-earned acclaim - i.e. what he (and they) properly deserved, a heroes' welcome - but rather to a general divvying up of Bilbo Baggins' (& Co's) assorted lifetime goods, hoardings and everyday stuff. Of course, upon arrival back in Bag-End, Mister Baggins by his very, if unwelcome, presence, promptly puts an end to these unwarranted proceedings, putting swift paid to all those unjustified consequences of assuming he'd suffered a premature demise. As ****one wag famously described a similar past occurrence: "Rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

+/-Am glad that Billy Boyd (Pippin in LOTR) secured some sort of a role in the film, if 'only' in the musical score 'The Last Goodbye' at the very end. Though actually, unlike both the preceding Hobbit flicks and especially the three Lord of the Rings' films, I'm constrained to say that musical scores in The Five Armies were neither especially well done nor for that matter all that noticeable much less memorable. In fact, I have to add that I've absolutely no lasting memory of any tunes let alone lyrics from film #3, though a haunting one remains from one of the first two flicks, something about going in search of dragon treasure and the like, upon an adventure the end thereof being still completely unknown and eliciting much trepidation. That one, whatever it was, did have a certain 'catchiness' and haunting broodiness to it, enabling easy recall; indeed readily coming into mind just now for the first time in possibly yonks when I simply tasked my mind to recollect any such tunes and words still residing within one of memory's vaults.

+/-The film early on seemed to constantly jump back and forth between various settings with their respective actors and thus evoked a sense of the Rings' films especially following the splitting up of the Nine Companions; such 'cutting' in and out actually serving the useful purpose of keeping the viewer upon his or her toes and in a state of unremitting suspense thus only enhancing the tension and dramatic effect.

+/-Fine characterization of Thorin: his stubbornness ('purest' obstinacy), 'dragonsickness' and relationship to Bilbo are conveyed with aplomb; but his death, though welcome as one of the film's realistic elements (see above), appears uncannily reminiscent of Boromir's death 'speech' in PJ's Fellowship of the Ring, belatedly apologizing for not having had the prescience to discern the reality of Bilbo Baggins' (cf Frodo's) loyalty and devotion to the cause. (See also my criticisms of Hobbit #2 film's disconcertingly frequent echoes/repeats of other major Rings' film scenes and speeches.)

+/-Despite the relatively (as in appropriate to the source text) fitting ending (as above) - and admittedly it was probably much too hard to show Bilbo's return alongside Gandalf et al all the way back to Bag End or at least Hobbiton - it is a bit strained at times vis-a-vis frequent and all too obvious attempts to tie together all three Hobbit and Lord of the Rings films (is too much like 'with the benefit of hindsight' etc), though such touches as re-inserting Bilbo - at the start and end of the Hobbit saga - in his older Ian Holm manifestation, is obviously necessary to tie the two trilogies together, notwithstanding these 'touches' do come over as increasingly forced and unnatural in my view.

+Thranduil's (the Elven-king's) imperious coldness, severity is well-depicted.

+Alfrid's weaselly/cowardly and money-grubbing tendencies is a brilliant touch.

+/+The Lakeshore (cf LOTR film#2) is well shot/very realistically done (set similarly along some Central Otago lakescape?)...and Lake-town residents' well-founded anger at Alfrid and his Master (who has now vamoosed, leaving his dutiful, most devoted servant to cop all the blame and opprobrium) is well-depicted.

+Bard's kids - very 'quaint'(ly done) and appropriate in both attire and sober, serious demeanour (again, cf the Two Towers film).

-The talking raven, Roac son of Carc, could have been used to much better effect, as in actually doing just that, i.e.talking, communicating in actuality with the likes of Bard and the dwarves, as in Tolkien's tome. As opposed to Bard et al simply instinctively, intuitively knowing precisely what to do, which was the most appropriate course of action to take in the circumstances - whether in terms of unveiling, literally uncovering Smaug's best kept secret, the hollow beside his left breast, or as in the tread of footsoldiers coming towards the Lonely Mountain as the imminent 'battle of the five armies' drew ever closer, or for that matter Bilbo's being informed that 'Hi-ho, Smaug is Dead, the Dragonbeast is dead, the Dragonbeast is dead, hi-ho, the wicked Smaug is dead' (in the inimitable manner of The Wizard of Oz) rather than - as the film erroneously depicted - his being able to espy such as occurring merely by the dancing of light and flame upon the far horizon.

+Effective villains/battle sites [Stone/Mountain Trolls etc: cf Thunder 'Trolls' in film#1]. The snowy mountain fastnesses and melting ice crusts are realistic, as is the poignant, literally gripping moment when Azog stabs Thorin from below, piercing his battle-hardened and weary feet from beneath, another more realistic touch, showing there's life in the old rogue yet.

+Villains (especially Azog/Bolg) were thus realistically portrayed here, not being easily defeated let alone killed off (for good).

+Odd but effective 'touch' having King Thorin himself thus die, and before he gets to taste the joy of securing Smaug's vast treasure hoard for good and ever after, but as in the book, this realistic scene only enhances the credibility of the story as a whole.

+Nice good-bye scene of Bilbo with the ?nine/ten? remaining/surviving dwarves, not only Thorin, but Fili and Kili also suffering martyrdom for the cause I believe.

-Not so/very much is seen of the other company dwarves this time, including Balin, the overall emphasis indeed being distinctly non-dwarvish, upon such new stars/novas as Bard (and the Lake-'men' generally), Tauriel, Thranduil and Legolas.

Introductory scene of the Chief Villain, the Dragon Smaug, beseiging Lake-town is well-enacted/depicted  - featuring no Jacksonesque el typical (though they do work very well in The Lord of the Rings flicks, and in the first Hobbit film anyhow) backgrounder or flashback. Yes, Smaug here in his final moments is every bit as downright scary, vengeful and fire-breathe-ingly nasty as he should have been, as his well-earned reputation warranted.

Radagast the rustic, country bumpkin wizard is okay, if merely adequate here, though the eagles are well done again. Whereas 'the Lady Galadriel' - shades if not major overtones of 'Mother Mary' of Roman Catholic 'Mary, Mother of God' in/famy (which I realize is no great insight or new revelation) - is also okay, if a little strained (in trying to connect Lord of the Rings' and Hobbit films; again, cf Hobbit films#1 and 2.)

+/- Six-minute specially-designed Introduction adequate - as far as it went - but really neither here nor there (as in a useful add-on). Better for Jackson/Tolkien afficionadoes to invest in proper backgrounder dvds (like those accompanying the Lord of the Rings films).

-/+Way too many un-credible close shaves for Bilbo Baggins, whereas compare and contrast and note well the highly credible near-killing of Gandalf.

+/-Scenery at the start is typically kiwi-ish picturesque, yet somehow, unaccountability - it pains me to say this and quite frankly I didn't think I'd (ever) be doing so - unrealistic, as in somewhat unpersuasive; like picture painting, cf actual photo shot.

+Depiction of Thorin's unaccountable, 'death'll first freeze over before I'll ever back down, and even then I won't', stubbornly senseless intractableness - seen in relation to other characters, not only Bard the Bowman and Dragon-Slayer, but moreover his fellow (special company) dwarves - i.e. both friends and kindred and foes alike - is especially effectively portrayed, being almost a master-stroke of the film's characterization...and unfortunately one of the very few really good examples thereof in Battle of the Five Armies.

+Billy Connolly's much-vaunted entrance a welcome and interesting respite, even a foil of a sorts to other characters/the situation in general. But ultimately a bit of an anticlimax, as no sooner are we introduced to Dain, King of the Northern Dwarvish Kingdom than, hey presto, we see no more of him.

+Thorin et al's determination to go in a 'to the death' pursuit of Azog, Bolg et al [Enemy Head Honchos Inc.] is a somewhat useful addition to Tolkien's original narrative.

+Much more creative licence and liberty is employed in this third Hobbit film, but generally to good effect, effectively capturing the essential spirit of Tolkien's book despite it all.

+/-The Master's attempt at all conceivable costs, whatever utter shredding to his erstwhile fastly vanishing credibility, to escape from Lake-town like the proverbial rat from the sinking ship - and many of his former townspeople, in days, weeks and years to come, no doubt would've considered that an all too fitting symbol and metaphor for their former Mayor - is effectively portrayed, but as I say above, he shouldn't have henceforth disappeared entirely from the story.

+Hobbiton folks' utter ignorance of Bilbo's adventure and the consequent raiding of all his personal effects they are able to lay their grubby little paws upon, is very well and quite cleverly depicted.

(Something pretty well only alluded to in previous films, including and especially Fellowship of the Ring, though the extent to which and the way in which that film in particular dealt with Lobelia Sackville-Bagginses is brilliantly portrayed for all that, however brief and savagely succinct the 'mention' therein may well be.)

+Refreshing greens and hues of Hobbiton's and Bag-End's rich, earthy setting and surrounds at very end following the exhausting, long drawn out battle scenes around the increasingly desolate and forlorn-looking Lonely Mountain.

+Galadriel's and Saraman's and Elrond's mini-battle royale with Sauron is well portrayed - especially his speedily returning might, readily sapping Gandalf's and Galadriel's energy reserves/life forces. But, and it's no small but, as I remarked in one or other of my various blogposts upon Hobbit films one and two, if Sauron is really this very powerful already, what could possibly have delayed him 60-odd years from making - c/o his henchmen, the nine Ringwraiths, so memorably and skilfully and powerfully, hauntingly rendered in PJ's Fellowship of the Ring - his raid upon the Shire in pursuit of the 'One Ring to rule them all'?  

+Use/employment of neighbouring mountains and vistas is good.

+/-The re-employment of Beorn (and Radagast: see above) is again okay as far as it went.

So what sort of initial conclusions can one make about this third and final part of Peter Jackson Et Al's second Tolkien trilogy? Overall, some rather brilliant touches, innovations and creative genius displayed in this final Hobbit film, but so many of my responses seem to reflect a sense of mere adequacy, of that mediocrity-eliciting term 'okay', that overall - upon  (soon-arising) reflection if not admittedly upon initial impression - one cannot avoid the idea that the whole Jacksonesque take upon Tolkien has ended more with a whimper than a bang, fizzling out much like a damp squib or a Guy Fawkes sparkler that has simply failed to really kindle much less flare up...a disappointment upon all manner of fronts even if said movie nevertheless featured some powerful portrayals and characterization, some stunning settings and scenery, and several brilliant touches and master-strokes. But if nothing else, Smaug the Dragon, the Chiefest of Calamities, goes out in the blaze of infamy and inglorious splendour well befitting JRR's exquisitely-depicted portrayal of said 'giant worm'. At least Smaug the Terrible fails to disappoint, and perhaps that is a redeeming feature of The Battle of the Five Armies that makes it all worthwhile, alongside Bilbo's sadly inglorious return to his home, where his kindred could frankly care less that he has just managed to save their collective bacon for a little while longer from not only a Dragon but Sauron's soon-coming wrath. As One has well said, and indeed has Tolkien well portrayed in The Lord of the Rings even if this was completely absent from Sir Peter Jackson's Return of the King: "A prophet is not without honour except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house." So Master Baggins, you're amidst some very esteemed company indeed!

*I'm assuming, that is, that he and his crew are finally completely through seeking to convert JRR's classic fantasy tomes to movie format, seeing as the only likely contender, The Silmarillion - Tolkien's own especial favourite - is, aside from exceedingly complex in nature, apparently more of an historical take upon all things Middle Earthian than a strictly go to woe narrative as such. Then again, if PJ Et Al were to seek to also adapt this book, approval would again have to be sought, and I somehow strongly suspect such authorization would now be a lot less likely to be given than heretofore...but it's only a strong suspicion.

**Double (or even triple) ratings naturally being reserved for especially positive/negative efforts.

***Confirmed to me a couple weeks later by an astronomical buff I happened to almost literally bump into, who - admittedly, perhaps simply to be agreeable, but he seemed totally genuine - also agreed with me that the famed Arkenstone had indeed been a bit of a let-down.

****Or was it in fact post-World War Two United States President Harry Truman, in regards to his presumed election defeat in 1948 - as opposed to his premature death - as in the notorious and much-lampooned, with the benefit of hindsight, U.S. newspaper proclaiming his imminent defeat by Republican challenger Thomas Dewey on election night prior to all the votes being counted?

End of An Era - with arrival of 'The Battle of the Five Armies'...So What To Make of it all?

Yes, 'she's all over bar the shouting', and screaming, stomping, stampeding and endless scrutinizing, dissecting, analyzing, evaluating. C'est la vie - "such is life". So what to make of it all - i.e. both my initial impressions of, and later, but still recent reflections, upon this latest and final 'trilogic' instalment of Peter Jackson & Co's cinematic take upon JRR Tolkien's classic kids' fantasy?

Initially? Well, fairly positive, yea even somewhat taken aback. I actually found much instinctive applause welling up within to PJ's creative licence as the Five Armies suddenly, and rather unashamedly, began. And indeed this final Hobbit film saga metaphorically got underway in a superbly unique fashion.

Much as someone being told to strap on one's seatbelt and 'get ready, steady, (to then) go' as the flight abruptly began its takeoff, we the viewers were treated - no apologies proffered - to Smaug the Dragon's no-holds-barred, relentless assault upon the Lake-Town Esgaroth with its peasant fisherfolk and their little ones scattering helter-skelter in all directions, especially 'underground' or rather onto life rafts as they furiously scrambled to escape by the virtual skin of their collective teeth from the fiery monster as he continuously circled like a vulture in the skies and came ever lower, lower, lower, spewing out fire and brimstone upon all in his path, whether human, animal or mere 'artifacts' of architectural devising. Such 'for real' was the impact of Smaug's 'wrath and fury' upon all in his fiery path. This dragon (originally 'giant worm' in Tolkien's characteristically delightful and whimsical rhetorical flourish, and personally illustrated, and superbly, by JRR himself), was not one to be messed let alone trifled with! No, not on your - or your nanna's - nelly.

Yes, and this positive impression remained pretty well throughout the rest of the film despite the many obvious discrepancies between this particular 'edition', the classically Jacksonesque version, and Tolkien's original, as it thenceforth rapidly decelerated from rocket into simply breakneck speed and thence eased off into and soared along in cruise control on to its relatively speedy conclusion just over two hours later. A feat, need it be mentioned, itself possibly a record of brevity in the annals of PJ's take upon both Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. And yet, oddly enough, after then in an equally rapid-fire flurry penning a not inconsiderable succession of bullet-points upon the final film - both during the movie's final credits as everyone vacated the theatre except movie staff and myself, and then at a secretive outdoors lunch retreat immediately thereafter (having previously during the long-anticipated build-up to the finale planned to dedicate the entire rest of this day to writing up one, if not several, blogposts upon this final instalment)...after all the foregoing, I cannot but address the following question: What did I feel?

A sense of being quite if not wholly underwhelmed by the entire (Hobbit film) experience, and in particular this final 'episode'. And that quite despite myself wanting to find any and every reason for that not being so. Yes, I'm shocked, indeed almost ashamed, to have to admit that as I left the picture theatre I had the feeling, the sense of having found this final film - and therefore in some sense the *entire trilogy - distinctly immemorable; without, as I've said, wishing this to be the case let alone happy that I'd found it thus. But if honest at heart one cannot but state the reality of one's actual experience.

So, to succinctly summarize - admittedly not a thing that comes naturally to me! - a more than adequate finale, rendered in classic, even inimitable Jacksonesque style to boot. But, equally sadly - again, I confess to saying this quite involuntarily - one all too soon forgotten, vanishing from my mental, imaginative grasp almost as quickly as it'd left its various impressions upon me. And that despite ensuring I'd achieved **one of my most restful, refreshing sleeps the night before so that my wits were all about me, my mind was fresh and active, and my recollections vivid and distinct. Such were my initial and soon-thereafter impressions of  The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.

Shuteye being needful and moreover 'early to bed, early to rise [being the secret of] mak[ing] a man healthy, wealthy and wise' - of which the first, and arguably the third, if hardly the second, I like to think apply in my case - this is where I'll leave matters tonight, before elaborating upon this another day. Leaving till then that aforementioned bullet-point list of positives and negatives for one and all to peruse, chew over, digest and hopefully assimilate. Though it's much more commonplace, I'll readily grant, to cite all the details first, then summarize into generalities, I've - if quite unintentionally - done otherwise this time around. And perhaps that's not altogether a bad thing, as it's sometimes all too easy to get lost in the detail and lose sight of the bigger picture. And ultimately that 'bigger picture' is what we tend to take away and retain.

*Bar 'The Battle of the Five Armies' 's beginning anyhow, and pretty well the entire first film: a splendid adaptation in my book, anyhow - whatever the multitude of (I believe largely politically-motivated, as in anti-the special N.Z. Government deal effected in late 2010 or 2011) critics of the day declared.

**Sadly, quite unlike the last three weeks since, and that despite my very best efforts. So my decision to go when I did - in retrospect, as in prospect at the time - was one of my better ones.

Finally There, and At Last Back Again: The Hobbit movies, having come full circle, are finally at an end and bring Peter Jackson, Weta Workshop et al's cinematic adaptations of JRR Tolkien's two most famous and celebrated works to an abrupt, anticlimactic conclusion

Yes, she's all over bar the shouting, with nary a whimper much less a bang...save the upcoming 'Academies' (awards, that is), for which I predict a very mixed review for Jackson, Weta workshop Et Al's sixth and final take upon JRR Tolkien's classic tomes (The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit). The Jacksonesque version of said hobbit-obsessed works has indeed at last come to a rather abrupt and anticlimactic end for Tolkien/Jackson afficionadoes like myself. Yes, we've quite literally, it seems, arrived at the end of an era.

Sure, I've little doubt whatsoever that the team here in God's Own will scoop up not only the dragon's share of Academy Awards for visuals, costuming, special effects etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...indeed quite possibly sweeping 'em all, even 'hand's down', though I *strongly suspect that the 'major' awards (for best actor, director, story etc) will not go their way. Which is rather sad for not only Sir Peter himself and his co-writers/directors (in view of his/their lifetime work essentially being this triad turned sextuplet, a monumental work and accomplishment in its own right even were it not such a distinctive and powerful 'production' and internationally popular, prize-winning undertaking), but - if realized - will also be an unfair reflection upon some other superb 'assets' in the enterprise. Such as the unquestionably exceptional talents of the younger Bilbo Baggins, Martin Freeman, who has turned in another very good rendition of Tolkien's inimitable character, on top of what was an equally good performance in the second film and a simply superb characterization in the very first Hobbit film. Somehow I suspect that the films have not - even remotely - come up to, much less exceeded, the simply out-of-the-universe expectations built up over the years (and now decade plus) since the Lord of the Rings' films bowled all before them. I suspect people - even some Jackson/Tolkienophiles like myself - have simply tired of the long-winded, never-ending project, which seems to have become more about a monument to Peter Jackson & Co's extraordinary cinematic talents and imaginative genius than a tribute to the original idea(s) and creative legacy of JRR Tolkien.

For which I certainly impute no intentionally self-serving motive to Jackson Et Al, I simply recognize their inextricable closeness from the whole affair and believe that 'incestuous' involvement has tended - if rather subtly, largely unconsciously, even almost imperceptibly - to obscure their vision and stunted their ability to distance themselves from the project often enough to really see whereto their efforts have ultimately led them: i.e. to a somewhat self-perpetuating, self-referential retelling of Tolkien's stories in such a way that they point less and less to his creative genius and more and more to that of their modern-day technically brilliant, even unsurpassed cinematic interpreters. And in addition I believe the case can easily be made that the movie version of said tales has also become more a matter of placating modern sensibilities, prejudices and perspectives - see: gender equality, spicing things up with a dash of romance here, and an extra large helping of violence and warfare there - than faithfully fulfilling the creative worlds and vision, quintessential quirks and inimitable ideas and inspiration of JRR himself. Such seem unavoidable conclusions, even were the Hobbit films never to have come about, and all we had to go on (and therefore judge or make evaluations by) being the three Lord of the Rings movies.   

*Though, if only in Martin Freeman's case at least, I hope to be disproven. And PJ, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Richard Taylor, Tania Rogers and Weta Workshop et al have also surely 'proved their quality', as Sam Gamgee might have put it, and earned not only their keep but commensurate rewards for - overall - their consistent, top-of-the-class talents and efforts. I simply suspect that, as the films have come to an ending with more of a whimper than a bang, the onlooking Academy Awarders will see things likewise, having, much like myself and many others I instinctively feel, simply come to tire of the whole affair and rather impatiently wishing for its speedy wrapping up. Moreover, failing to see enough 'new stuff' (qualitywise) to justify the seemingly never-ending project and to compensate their already greatly diminished expectations. 

Undue Self-Exaltation Inevitably Precedes and Anticipates A Speedy and Severe Fall

"An exultant Western triumphalism" is the pithy yet comprehensive way in which the one-time Soviet Union's arguably most celebrated President, Mikhael Gorbachev, has, just the other day, chosen to use to describe the ideologically partisan manner in which the West(ern powers), 'led' by the then United States' President, George Bush the First, understood, interpreted and publicly described the historic fall of the Berlin Wall 25 years ago (yesterday, New Zealand time, and today, Northern Hemispheric time - November the ninth, 1989).

'Right on' was my own automatic, instinctive reaction the other day - indeed what Gorbachev said pretty well echoed my own long-held view and perception of that decisive *'event' almost word for word - though unlike that prescient and domestically unfairly-maligned - essential, if often unrecognized (at least by his own countrymen and women) architect of the one-time Soviet Union's counter-revolution - it astonishes me to realize I cannot for the life of me **recall exactly where I was and what I was doing when news of such history-in-the-very-making finally hit home to me, or that precise event (of the Berlin Wall's fall) transpired.

*Though more a series, a succession of similar events, as nation after nation, country after country amongst the U.S.S.R.'s string of satellite states stretched across the former Eastern Europe buckled, crumbled to the ongoing 'onslaught' of democratic sensibilities, of the simple thirst for not only 'liberty' but indeed even ***'equality' - two of the three pillars of the itself historic, earth-shaking events of the French Revolution almost exactly two centuries prior.

**Again unlike where I was (and what I was doing) when news reached me of Princess Diana's death (or anticipated end, anyhow, following her motorcade's horrific smash/crash in a French tunnel), or similarly when I first heard (and, moreover, it truly sunk in) that America had just undergone the events of '9/11' (as it will ever after be known) - those incredible scenes of airliners crashing into the sides of the 'Twin Towers' being indelibly etched, seared into the memory cells, one's consciousness, and thereafter is unfailingly remembered for time immemorial, world without end. (Though I do distinctly recall pacing the streets (in my itinerant, door-to-door selling capacity) observing a headline in the local Courier Mail proclaiming - at least some significant parts of - said events occurring, now I really come to it.)

***As is now well known 'everywhere' and to 'everybody' taking even just a casual interest in such matters, the so-called 'equality' for which that autocratic, monolithic system was best known was only ever a parody of such egality envisaged by the likes of Friedrich Engels and his infinitely better known fellow theorist Karl Marx - being in actual, everyday, concrete practice far more akin to George Orwell's brilliantly satirical line: "all (2-legged creatures) are equal, but some are more equal than others".

Pretty Well Right On All Fronts, Mr Prime Minister: Well Done

The chance to find things to congratulate our present, rockstar-popular P.M. John Key upon seems less and less frequent these days, so can I say - as succinctly as possible - his (and his Government's) very measured, ever-so-carefully calibrated response to the obscenity and loathsome spectacle that's known as ISIS, ISIL (and all the seemingly endless variations and permutations thereupon) is RIGHT ON, JUST WHAT THE GOOD DOCTOR ORDERED. In every which way. Utterly irrespective of the petty partisanship (and niggardly damning with faint praise and/or noticing the trees but missing the forest) thereupon displayed this afternoon by Metiria Turei and Winston Peters in the unhallowed corridors of Aotearoa-New Zealand's Parliamentary debating chamber. Yes, a good and thoughtful debate all round - including very insightful contributions especially (and to me surprisingly) by both United Future's Peter Dunne and Act's newbie Epsom M.P. David Seymour. Alongside some good speeches made by the likes of Annette King, David Shearer, Phil Goff and especially the ever erudite, learned and reflective Kennedy Graham: who at least gave a series of step points which he noted the Green Party had brought to its evaluation of how to properly, and coolly and rationally, determine whether or not New Zealand ought to become, and if so in which particular ways, the conflict over IS in the Middle East. We also had the unflappable, temperamentally ever equable Murray McCully, the equally reasonable and earnest Gerry Brownlee, and the Jim Hickeyish man of colour, flair and dramatics (if not histrionics!) Christopher Finlayson, and of course the P.M. himself, giving especially thoughtful contributions, and - in a quietly dissenting voice - the mild-mannered, oh so reasonable (and likeable) Te Ururoa Flavell, who brought up (if a rather misplaced comparison, it seemed to me, upon this particular occasion) the historic spectacle of Parihaka and the 2007 Urewera terror raids.

But upon and after hearing the Prime Minister 'rounding up' and concluding said debate two hours later - before politicians entered into another, all too predictable and oh so unproductive Question Time which rapidly brought all this 'untoward' and refreshingly different meeting of minds to a sad and abrupt end - my thoughts immediately turned to John Key's Jewish counterpart, the famed leader of Israel, King David, about whom the biblical writer of 1 Samuel penned this/the following:

"So David went out wherever [King] Saul sent him, and behaved wisely[prospered]...and he was accepted in the sight of all the people and also in the sight of Saul's servants...he went out and came in before the people. And David behaved wisely in all his ways, and the Lord was with him...he behaved very wisely...all Israel and Judah loved David, because he went out and came in before them." [1 Samuel 18:5; 14-16]

Granted, perhaps a - huge, even humongous - stretch - to even contemplate comparing our present P.M. to that celebrated great leader of historic Israel, however popular Key may still be in historic kiwi terms...approximating in that sense, however, to such 'heavyweight' (as in similarly popular and/or longserving) Prime Ministers as Keith Holyoake, and 'King' Dick Seddon, as well as William Massey, Michael Joseph Savage and 'Big Norm' Kirk himself; but let's briefly enumerate his 'accomplishments' in this latest and arguably (indeed as widely noted, potentially) most important decision in his premiership. What precisely did the Prime Minister achieve today in his speech and plan for New Zealand - whether in terms of active overseas engagement vis-a-vis IS and/or surveillance of its domestic (kiwi) sympathizers/adherents?

He informed us that his Government: *Would not send ground troops into Iraq (and of course also Syria). *Would nevertheless provide practical, hands-on support to other forces taking up the cudgels to battle the evil that is IS, so would not shirk 'doing its part' in the global fight against patent wrong (as in genocide). *And indeed would be providing extensive support and humanitarian aid to refugees fleeing IS and its rampant atrocities.*Had no gripes or quibbles or qualms with New Zealand's sizeable and essentially peaceful, peace-loving Muslim community. *Nevertheless was well aware that New Zealand had folk in its midst apparently actively sympathetic with the aims of IS, and so potentially of real concern to our citizenry. *Would not be enacting sweeping new laws to deal with this 'threat'. *And indeed would be imposing special measures to carefully safeguard citizens' rights and indeed even the 'rights' of those who themselves could - theoretically - cause trouble in God's Own (as in carefully extended police warrants over a limited period).
Etcetera etcetera etcetera.

But of course 'the devil' is ever in the detail, and even more worryingly - as folk far more erudite and articulate than I have oft expressed - who knows in what unwholesome ways and to what worrying an extent such newfangled powers may one day be employed by a much less benign, liberty-loving government of our nation. For, as noted author C K Stead's memorable hero in Smith's Dream - the book upon which the first truly famous kiwi film, Sleeping Dogs, was based - eventually found out, discovered to his 'eternal regret', political powers once obtained are rarely disbanded or eschewed. They indeed may be ever so finely tuned and adapted to achieve aims which - if not in SD, admittedly -  their original proposers never envisaged, and which draw down the curtain well and truly, and 'for good', upon people who all too blithely and naively place tacit, inherent trust in the good intentions of their leaders, and trust all too implicitly to their fair professions and fine speeches. Not realizing until it is forever too late that their pet snake has become a stinging, lethal serpent, whose fangs will bite deeply and not release their prey until it is all well and truly over.

'...England shall at last admit a foe, The world to an end shall come...'

Thus 'spake' the famous Mother Shipton, the medieval 'prophetess', in her fifteenth century (poetic) prediction of coming 'attractions'. Though one cannot - in all good faith and adherence to the truth - avoid adding that her very next, last stanza line added, obviously very significantly, 'In **eighteen hundred and eighty-one' as the end-date of that end of the world 'prophecy', one cannot help be taken by the above (title of this blogpost) quotation from said 'prediction'; alongside many other stanzas of equal interest and note/significance, as a matter of fact... 

But this little blogpost is for another reason altogether, in fact simply to record my - admittedly all too feeble - obituary to the premature passing of a humble hero and modern-day paragon of virtue, the taxi driver Alan/Allan Henning, cut down in his prime just three short days ago now... May he rest in peace, and his kith and kin be - somehow (I don't know how) - consoled/comforted...and may every last one of your tormenters/torturers, Alan, rot in hell - to the very end of time...alongside every last one of their fellow-travelling apologists...

*A poem I quite literally stumbled upon Sunday week ago in a classic olden times' tome of Clarence Reed, entitled Great Prophecies About the War...though I'd previously also come across 'Mother Shipton', supposedly a Medieval 'crazy woman' (as in a dreamer/visionary/mystic), in one of two wonderful dvds signalling presumably/supposedly the End of the World in 2012, the History Channel's 'Nostradamus: 2012: Hindsight is 20/20. Foresight is 2012'; and Nostradamus Effect: The Complete Season One: How Will The End Begin?'.

**Curiously enough 1881 is a bombshell of a date in numerological terms, with two '18s' back to back, a number in occult meaning impregnated with psychic power and oomph, associated (from recall of my late teen days when becoming a professional astrologer/numerologist was top upon my agenda) with such worldwide, earth-shattering, traumatic events as revolutions...and together creating a third 18...almost like the synthesis and its antithesis out of which Karl Marx (alongside Friedrich Engels) manufactured their infamous theory of imminent global Communist Revolution.

A Person of Principle versus Pragmatism Personified: A Personal Perspective Upon Two 'Concurrent' Electoral Results (in diametrically opposite corners of the world)

Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland, versus John Key, thrice re-elected Prime Minister of New Zealand: Two Men of Diametrically-Opposing Character and Qualities. But, as the thoroughly thrashed cliche goes, first let me explain myself... How much better - and ultimately satisfying - to go down, as the noted Scots nationalist, *Alex Salmond, just has, in a blaze of glory (as it were), than to win however decisive and overwhelming, moreover 'comprehensive', an electoral victory - let there be **no doubt whatsoever - as his Antipodean 'first minister' (of Aotearoa, New Zealand), John Key, has/did...while unashamedly playing, on a consistent basis, as fast and loose with the truth as kiwis have seen (at least since Helen Clark herself; admittedly, Key's immediate predecessor!) As noted author of NZ election conspiracy-style thrillers, Nicky Hagar, remarked during the veritable slew of '(two) morning(s) after' interviews following thick and fast here in NZ, and which expressed this idea of mine even more forcibly and cogently: "We (i.e. the people-at-large) can make a mistake in politics, we can think that [political] success means that you've done the right thing" Amen! (If I can say, as I said, or at least attempted to articulate, myself.) And in response to another political commentator, the ever incisive, ***if often quite politically partisan, Newstalk ZB talkback host Leighton Smith, to refer to the Maori Party, post-Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia - as he then mentioned NZ First will be in the (coming) era following the inevitable, ultimate departure of the inimical 'Right Honourable' Winston Peters - as being 'a party of cult personality', is, quite frankly, to not see the wood for the trees, to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel, to miss the gigantic elephant in the middle of the room. (If you'll excuse my own rather shameless juxtaposing of three tried and well-used cliches within the one sentence.) Sure, who'd disagree? But then what about John Key himself? Surely if one ever wanted to identify, to highlight the closest thing New Zealand has politically ever come to a personality cult, simply look no further. And it would hardly be a stretch to say that, were it not for him, and his considerable political acumen and skills, the National Party's electoral fortunes from 2008 on would likely be a whole lot less impressive - and by a country mile or a million! *a man of rare integrity, grit and steely determination (to the sadly, rather bitter, end). **Some have said, not only since Sidney Holland's Waterfront Workers Strike snap election win in 1951, but even since that grand old gentleman of NZ Politics Inc, "King Dick" Seddon, in 1899. ***Though admittedly not even remotely in the same league as the likes of fellow broadcasters Larry Williams or Mike Hosking, who've made a virtual art from of that completely anti-journalistic 'practice'.

A Real Straight-Shooter Bites the Dust: Ian Paisley, All Out (like Tony Benn) for 88: May he rest therein in peace until the Resurrection Day...

The Man of (NZ) Labour Was Truly 'Our Big Norm': A Shamefacedly Belated Tribute to a Leader we were proud to follow: 40 years on, may we pay due tribute...however negligent our 'now'-fixated mainstream media (Q&A excepted) has been to commemorate this grand anniversary of his premature, still unresolved and perplexing passing

What Hast Thou Done? (Part 2)

These six things the LORD
hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination
to Him[His soul]:
A proud look[haughty eyes],
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent 
blood,
A heart that devises wicked
plans,
Feet that are swift in running
to evil,
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord
among brethren.
(The Holy Bible, New Kings James Version)

(The state of) Israel has much innocent blood  upon her hands, and conscience. NOTHING - WHATSOEVER - can possibly, or remotely, excuse her or be a reasonable defence/justification/acceptable rationalization for her shedding the blood of innocents - wholly innocent infants, toddlers and even nursing babes (or, for that matter, the lives of the aged, the sick and suffering, the infirm, and other vulnerable Palestinians)...cut down/singled out and slaughtered - heartlessly, mercilessly, in sheer, savage butchery...upon the seashores of Gaza; within its hospitals and schools and other supposed 'safe havens'; and upon the streets and in the homes of Gazan cities, towns and villages.

Let's get something - perfectly - straight (at the outset): this is as far as can be found from the reflections (or rather heartfelt reaction/response) of an apologist for Hamas (or Hezbollah/Hezbullah): terrorist organizations alike whose #1 aim, purpose, even very raison d'etre is to exterminate Israelites, to erase the state of Israel from the map of Planet Earth: once and for all time; no ifs, buts or maybes.To drive the nation literally into the [Mediterranean] Sea This is evidently in their very charters, and has been since Israel's re-inception as a sovereign territory upon that fateful, long-prophesied day in 1948. At which time surrounding Arab nations tried - totally unsuccessfully - to take and defeat her, to dislodge her from her God-given and returned/restored lands/territories in Palestine.

I'm sorry, Jewish survivors of the world's most heinous historical act - against a people - simply had to find and have a home of their own; and one, moreover, with inviolable, globally-acknowledged and accepted borders wherein she might dwell safely, in peace and safety and without undue concern and anxiety. Surely following the Holocaust 'the world of men' could do, could offer her no less?

"What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground."

Near the outset of recorded human history - according to Holy Writ - the following conversation, immediately after the first murder was committed, was heard:

"And the LORD said unto Cain, "Where is Abel thy brother?" And he [Abel] said, "I know not: Am I (emphasis mine) my brother's keeper?" And [H]e[God] said, "What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto [M]e from the ground."

Fast forward to the very end of all things, where, in the Apocalypse, the last book of the New Testament, otherwise known as the Book of Revelation, we read these words of strong appeal: "And they cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost [T]hou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?"

Blood, symbolic of the life of its possessor, has ever been a potent metaphor in the Scriptures - though in its plain-as-day, literal meaning it is arguably equally so. Indeed, human life is so sacred, such an inviolable thing, that following 'Noah's Flood' humankind was instructed as follows: "...flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your [life]blood will I require...at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made [H]e man."

Indeed, so wonderful a condescension was the incarnation and self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon Calvary's cross, that the human race saw its redemption accomplished and ultimate salvation assured through the Deity, in the form of the Second Person of the Godhead, willingly consenting to have His blood shed on behalf of it.

Picture that: the Creator willingly offering Himself as a Victim to His creation, accepting death by murder to assure that creature's eternal life...

An awful portrait of a so-called 'God of Love' as some deem such an image? Not at all: rather a portrait of a Personified Love so broad and deep and vast that it was willing to forgo living eternally with its Fellow Godhead (Father and Holy Spirit) if only the object of its love might be saved eternally in God's eternal kingdom. Because nothing less could possibly atone for the sin which that creation had committed. A Love which voluntarily emptied Itself of all its privileges and suffered on behalf of and in that creation's stead - even if it were to cost that Divine One His Own Eternal Life! As the hymn writer has so well put, 'Love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all!'  

Bastille Day (2014) Overnight Afterthoughts...

But perhaps the real (war 'and other miscellaneous matters') criminals are not these aforementioned, including said global 'actors' claiming special *papal/religious dispensation, if not outright diplomatic immunity, for their past crimes and disreputable conduct.

*And may I suggest here that not all the (current) pontiff's 'tears', pleadings, and corporately-invoked self-flagellations - however welcome and appropriate and justifiable and even downright commendable - and/or all said Church's amends and penance, whether merely milked for public consumption or actually motivated by heartfelt repentance and true sorrow and contrition for sin, will ever make things right ever again. (Much like Pope John Paul the First's much-publicized 'apology' for the Roman Catholic Church's Dark Ages' abominations (such as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the St Bartholemew Massacre et al), all historically well-documented if nowadays conveniently omitted from social studies and history textbooks.) I'm referring of course to the legions in their ranks whose lives and hopes have been effectively destroyed and dashed by the glossing over and covering up of heinous evil...the ignoring, sidestepping and wilful ignorance of years, decades, yea - were the real truth made known - doubtless literally centuries, even perhaps (one-and-a-half to two) millennia, of such crimes against humanity.

                But onto the real substance of this posting:

No, methinks, vis-a-vis the ofttimes and usually justifiably criticized and moreover roundly condemned recent ex-President of the U S of A, whose much-vaunted 'War on Terror' effectively only 'upped the ante', metaphorically placing into the hands, and, more's to the point, thoughts and minds of each and every last would-be jihadist, terrorist and supposed 'freedom fighter' - this world supposedly has ever known - sufficient excuse, reason, justification and rationale (yea, all of these 'with knobs on'), for 'taking out' as much 'collateral damage' upon Bush Junior's (and Vice-President Dick Cheney's) own, supposedly condoning, nation and society - 'till kingdom come', and well beyond... .

Anyway, in relation to said ex-President Bush - the second - just as if not indeed even more reprehensibly, though seldom suggested except by the likes of the much-maligned investigative reporter/journalist John Pilger, is or rather was the record in office of George W Bush's father, the first George Bush presidency America was subjected to (from 1988 through 1992). Perhaps like me, into your own cranium, is seared for all time the first ever, live, 24-hour TV war, Desert Storm, against Iraq, or, more precisely, challenging the then Iraqi incursion into and attempted annexation of Kuwait. Well, be that as it very well may, it just so happens to set a rather appropriate setting for why I, like Pilger, view Bush Senior's conduct as so deplorable, or even criminal.

Though now - very recently - feted as 'a bit of a (real) lad' for his sky-diving antics ("down thar in Texas with all ma clan", George Junior et al), and indeed internationally (admittedly, including by Yours Truly), as President, for presiding over the justly-celebrated demise/breakup/disintegration and destruction of the former Soviet Union, alongside its string of satellite states, which perhaps like myself you recall 'falling' like dominoes with exponentially-increasing velocity: from Poland's years, to the next nation's months, to the following one's weeks, to the next one's days, to another's mere hours (well, you get the picture).

Anyhow, laying aside the fact, however unpleasant to some and loath they may be to admit it, that the epoch-changing revolution commonly known as 'the fall of the iron curtain' can much more justly be sheeted home to Bush Senior's predecessor ***Ronald Reagan, methinks said President Bush himself has a very serious charge or two to answer, yes, were it possible, at the International Court of Justice, though one day assuredly at the Universal Bar of Divine Justice and Judgment.

***Who, as American President in strategic alignment with Pope Francis' and Pope Benedict's own acclaimed (and decried) predecessor John Paul ****the Second - as well as, of course, the then Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev - didn't only preside over but played a decisive role in said epoch-making and altering events.

****Wonder what ever became of Pope John Paul the First? Hey, silly me, there's an entire book devoted to the subject, isn't there, In God's Name by David Yallop, I believe.

The charge being? Just this: not only the then President's elaborate and all too technically dextrous attempt to extricate himself from the fallout of the first Iraq War (which I will shortly detail), but, just as significantly - and awfully for all concerned - his complicity in, nay apparent authorization of, dreadful war crimes therein. To wit, the massacre of some 200,000 surrendering troops of then Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Despite a specific, indeed virtually unanimous(ly carried), United Nations' mandate and thus apparent near-global sanction even, for the American attack upon Hussein's army in Kuwait - to free the Kuwaitis anyhow - Bush later constructed an all too convenient and ingenious argument, cited in Time Magazine, to attempt to excuse the subsequent immediate U.S. force withdrawal, or more particularly their failure to 'take out', i.e. assassinate, the brutal, bloodthirsty Iraqi dictator himself. It being against international law and all that sort of thing to specifically kill the leader of a nation. Hey, perhaps Bush Senior was thinking of his own back? Though evidently it was (and is) quite kosher to dispose of hundreds of thousands of its' people, even when they no longer posed any kind of threat (either internationally or regionally) whatsoever. And thus to - if only by default, but don't you tell me Bush Senior wouldn't have been only too well aware of the potential, even probable consequences of so doing - effectively be complicit in Saddam Hussein's subsequent butchering of the Kurdish population of Iraq, using  internationally-outlawed chemical weapons to do so. Yes sirree, the late Saddam Hussein did indeed once not only possess but fully and mercilessly utilize said 'weapons of mass destruction'; that he verily did do. 

And so effectively making himself - by his cowardice at a time of great moment when all the world stood behind him as it were - more than somewhat responsible for all the atrocities that followed for Iraqi citizens throughout the decade-plus remainder of the departed tyrant's reign of terror. (The death total of Iraqis exterminated by his regime apparently numbering over one million by all accounts.)

So may all the world's present-day remaining war criminals please come forward - no, not to be honoured and awarded for your callous and coldly calculated inhumanities, but to plead your case before a world of war-weary peoples and citizenry. I dare you to - though somehow I suspect I'm wasting my breath. Perhaps if 'y'all' did so now - voluntarily, before push comes to shove - the eternal verdict later might perhaps stand you in rather better stead. But since true repentance ever involves a whole lot more than fancy footwork, public relations spin, media-condoned  'porkies' and poll-driven hype, methinks we'll all be waiting awhile yet... . Still, I've no doubt whatsoever Who'll eventually have the very last word. And I'm so sorry to have to be the one to break to you the news that after His oh-so-just deliberations and ultimate everlasting Judgment, there will not be any further appeals possible. Probation will be over - for both time and eternity.

No, our Creator's verdict will stand for time and eternity, and the outcome for all who fall foul of that decision will evidently be not too pretty. Hey folk, I didn't write the script. The Lamb of God slain from the very foundation of this world did, but some day - very, very soon in fact - He's returning to this old world, in great glory...no longer meek and mild, but the All-Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, ready to execute Vengeance upon all who've acted unjustly, yes, however 'religious' they may have once claimed to be... 

In Memory of Our (Aotearoa-New Zealand's) Rainbow Warrior Patriots, Cut Down in their Prime 28/29 Years Ago Today - by French State-Sponsored Terrorism Issuing - Undoubtedly - From the Very Highest Echelons of Power

May I take the liberty - and for that matter likewise employ in my 'defence' those other twin pillars of French society, equality and fraternity - of, *this Bastille Day (down here in the Antipodes, anyhow), 2014, marking the day by noting the anniversary of two pivotal events in our history (i.e. the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand waters - in 1985 or 1986, I believe; and the decisive and epoch-changing general election of the Fourth Labour Government of David Lange and Roger Douglas et al in 1984). And so of saying as follows:

The present-day witch-hunt of ex-President Nicholas Sarkozy, as has occurred evidently with various of his conservative predecessors (Jacques Chirac among others), as well as Monsieur Strauss-Kahn I believe (from the other side of the political divide), is a great if oh-so-effective smokescreen - deliberately intended or otherwise - from the deeds, increasingly discreditable evidently, of the present occupant of the Elysee Palace. But far more significantly, and troubling, of a former colleague of his, a 14-year, two- term-serving President known as Francois Mitterand to one and all, both in France and elsewhere. For that Monsieur Mitterand committed state-sponsored terrorism and indeed murder in the name of the French Republic seems almost beyond controversy these days.

Which is one major reason why New Zealand's own inimitable leader of the day, the now deceased David Lange, was such an ultimate disappointment. Though initially vocal about said event (Rainbow Warrior bombing), out of - perfectly understandable, but nevertheless - fear of the possible consequences, he let his criticisms be rather muted, and failed to pursue Mitterand and his Socialist Government all the way to the International Court of Justice/Criminal Court and press appropriate charges: i.e. against interference by a foreign power in the domestic affairs of God's Own, which interference moreover resulted in the tragic killing of a freelance photographer whose only crime was to be associated with the RW.

But don't expect Monsieur Mitterand to anytime soon, let alone ever be pursued by the French, much less the international, wheels of justice. Admittedly they turn rather slowly, but, more to the point, those who'd be indicted, were things to really operate as they should, would doubtless include among their number a number of previous American presidents and Roman pontiffs, and, as we all know, in this world and in this life such will doubtless escape justice. (Though citizen arrests have been attempted upon both the previous Pope and the then-serving ex-British Prime Minister - whether as war criminals or just plain 'ole international outlaws - while the world awaits 'with bated breath' the moment when Blair's buddy 'Dubya' may also receive such just desserts. But I'm advised to inform you you oughtn't lose any needed shuteye holding out.)

*Crediting National Radio's guest panellist John Bishop, upon their prestigious weekday Panel today, of reminding me of the fact.

Violent Crime #3: So whence cometh evil - originally?

And what, pray tell me, did a youth worker in Henderson, Auckland make of things? Appearing on Seven Sharp the very evening of the horrific tragedy, he honestly couldn't articulate - nor to his credit did he facilely (and ultimately futilely) attempt - any explanation. True, he neither sought to highlight nor downplay the role of such contributing factors to the whole sorry scenario as inequality and poor socio-economic status, even woefully deficient parental guidance and nurture - including 'whanau' - but neither did he even remotely suggest that such 'acceptably' explicated things. How could they?.

No folks, 'in the final analysis' there really ain't any - such - 'reason', or rather defense. He, and all arguably 'goody-two-shoes' fellow-travellers - however genuine and often very well-intentioned or otherwise - simply have no answers. For such a miserable God-forsaken act of savage thuggery. Just like that involving the tragically named Blessie only a couple weeks earlier. No, there simply is none.

No, sin, as Ellen White put it so very eloquently, has no essential cause or justifying motive. It is a rogue principle in God's Universe, giving rise to untold misery and destruction; and itself arising in the distant corridors of time itself, in the secret counsels of the Arch-Fiend himself, the Chief Rebel - Lucifer. Who, somehow, some day, in the veritable sawdust of history, caught a rather bewitchingly endearing glimpse of his own ego; and the Universe was never, ever, the same again. It was 'all over' from then on in, yes, downhill all the way.  

And as we all know - except those of us wilfully blinded by 'the god of this age' - our human race eventually became the collateral damage, as Satan or the devil - as he soon became - ever upped the ante in his unrelenting, aeon-spanning campaign against Central Headquarters, against, yea, the Very Creator Himself. A now 'purely' malevolent being seeking to take out as many as he could along the way; wishing nothing less than to inflict as much psycho-emotional damage upon a Creator whose motives were only love-actuated and whose actions were ever compassionate, gracious and merciful - yet also perfectly just, fair and reasonable - towards any and all the beings He had created.

This being of evil incarnate, before whom all others upon the pages of history fade into utter insignificance - except perhaps those he most successfully utilized such as Adolf Hitler - has played out a type of universal Russian roulette, his own nefarious endgame upon Planet Earth, for well-nigh 6,000-some years - whatever the evolution-brainwashed multitudes may like to think. But one day - very, very soon folks: hold onto your seats - it's coming to a neighbourhood right near you, and a whole lot sooner than you'd care to think - or have probably banked upon. And then - but not till then - all will finally be made right.

Lucifer, the devil, Satan, ye old serpent, that Great Dragon, will simply be no more. He will vanish - 'vamoose' - like the proverbial puff of smoke, and time, as we presently know it, will be no more. All will be engulfed and embraced in Eternity, a new dimension of time of which we presently have no conception. And then one rhythm of harmony, one heartbeat of Love, will pulse through the length and breadth of the Universe, and on into all the outlying recesses and hidden pockets thereof.

Love will be everywhere acknowledged as rightfully occupying the Throne of the Universe, and sin and suffering will be no more. And no excuse nor reason for the one-time eruption of the virus of sin will be admitted of. Yea, every voice of rationalization and self-justification will be forever silenced.

And the entire Universe will be at peace. 'And they will all live happily ever after'. Yes indeed.

Violent Crime in NZ today: Concluding Remarks: Is it really all the Left Apologists-in-Chiefs' fault?; and, if not, whence cometh such sheer evil in the first place?

Nothing is ever as easy as it looks, everything takes  - a whole lot - longer than you expect, and the one unerring rule of life - and any really useful commentary thereupon - is that life is difficult. Fullstop. As the famed and noted psychoanalyst H Scott Peck, among many others - such as Murphy of Murphy's Law (and its many subsequent addendums) - has expressed matters, this is the reality folks. End of this story, and every other.

Surely a rather flippant way to conclude my previous piece upon violent, heinous thuggery and senseless, gratuitous violence in present-day New Zealand? Indeed. But perhaps that's the very point I'm seeking, however circuitously (i.e. in a roundabout manner) and even unconsciously, intuitively, to make. The sheer inanity, or, as the noted Jewish author and attendee at Adolf Eichmann's infamous trial in Israel, Hannah Arendt, put it, 'banality of evil'. For, as one other noted commentator, the much-written Ellen Gould White, herself stated: 'It is impossible to explain the origin of sin so as to give a [satisfactory] reason for its existence.'

In other words, to find some actual explanation for evil is to essentially excuse and thus justify it. To provide extenuating reasons for its initial and continued existence in this world; and moreover, in the hearts and lives of each and every one of us. For, as the noted radio host Jim Mora asked as it were rhetorically when discussing the matter of evil - as if in how to isolate it, as in a test tube, and define it - in conversation a number of years ago with the noted investigative journalist John Pilger, is there not a 'line' of good and evil running through the heart of every person?

Sadly Mr Pilger took umbrage and sought to speedily end the discussion, or at least his own part therein, perhaps suggesting Mr Mora had touched on a sore point and was driving the actual truth home a little bit closer than Pilger was comfortable with. For it seemed only all too evident that the latter much preferred - as ideologically-driven political partisans are ever wont to do, no disrespect for or devaluation of John Pilger's noted contribution to the political debate over the decades intended - thereby to split, as his bete noire George W Bush was himself at that very moment being accused by Mr Pilger of doing, the entire world into a comic book style goodies versus baddies paradigm. Which admittedly ever makes more exciting, 'sexy' and sensational copy, and moreover serves to justify ourselves in taking up the cudgels to fight the good fight for a new world order based upon our own idiosyncratic values. Yet in its basic infidelity to the true human condition and our own at times somewhat inglorious parts in the particular worlds we inhabit, it is as glibly superficial as it is essentially false.

However upon the recent story of Arun Kumar in particular not all left-wing commentators are equal. And so I take my metaphorical hat off and make a due inward curtsy to long-time 'from the Left' spokesman Chris Trotter, who upon yet another of the celebrated National Radio Panel discussions yesterday gave the best overall appraisal of the situation I have yet to hear. Making not an iota of excuse or justification for the appalling event which transpired in Auckland last week, Mr Trotter laid any and all blame home with the offender/s, though he, like many of us, felt the police were themselves found missing in inaction. Citing the former well-known New York City Mayor (and one-time Republican Presidential hopeful) Rudolph Guilliani, Trotter mentioned how, in Guilliani's approach of getting tough upon minor crime and/or signs of decay and disrepair in inner-city neighbourhoods in particular, before these eventually and inevitably mushroomed, spiralling out of control and skyrocketing into worse and even more worsening manifestations, such heinous acts were well and truly nipped in the bud. (And though Trotter didn't mention this specifically, the rapid and steep 'down surge' in especially violent crime ever since that approach was adopted has been a sheer marvel to behold. And clearly a proof if one were needed of its unmitigated, unimpeachable success.)

As Mr Trotter pointed out, petty crime must have consequences just as night follows day, but if it doesn't, what people expect to get away with will only go from bad to worse, and understandably so. As other, more regular commentators on tough love and the like have well said, bad behaviour must be treated as such and given due repercussions, or the situation will only go from bad to worse to downright awful; in no time flat. Shades of the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act - i.e. the anti-smacking legislation - anyone? Duh.

So it was indeed refreshing to see a man of deep and well-earned left-wing credentials, who many, such as myself, consider unequivocally and incontrovertibly and uncontestably Aotearoa-New Zealand's most incisive socialist thinker, saying exactly the kind of stuff 'the rest of us believe'. Not as so many politicians of the left might do, simply to gain political traction when they belatedly realize they're well and truly on a political hiding to nothing and have nothing left to lose, but, wonder of wonders, because he simply sees sense and has an understanding of human nature and how it actually works. A pity that folk like himself, and, on the other side of the ideological 'equation', the likes of the notable and equally unrivalled talkback host Leighton Smith, aren't the ones leading our political parties and democracy. For then we'd no doubt have not only a healthier political debate, but perhaps occasionally achieve some useful things in the political sphere. But no, I won't lie asleep waiting.

To be concluded - following some needed shut-eye...the conclusion that really will be the conclusion!

Violent Crime in God's Own, 2014: The Modern-day Left: Missing in Inaction

In the aftermath of the brutal slayings of two overseas-born kiwis - Blessie and Mr Kumar (as they're 'known' to me, anyhow) - a couple thoughts have occurred to me...

Some would (be *fain to) - but they hardly can, they clearly can't in such circumstances (yes, admittedly, only 'alleged', supposedly, at present), yea, how could they? - defend, to the very hilt; to their **dying breath even, such savage thuggery/brutal and callous savagery and misanthropy. There is in a very real sense nothing left to say about it, is there, only the involuntary sucking in of one's breath as one contemplates - yet again - the gratuitous, almost flippant, snuffing out of another innocent life in what was once quite rightly known as God's Own (land).

Now let's clear up something at the outset. This writer is certainly not advocating - never has advocated and doubtless never will advocate - the arming of (say) dairy owners to help prevent such tragedies occurring, as both Mike Hosking and John Campbell, however fleetingly at the introduction to their shows last night, reported that some, somewhere (presumably in the vicinity or amidst the kith and kin of said victims), had themselves suggested in the initial predictable fallout from said incidents.

But what I also won't be doing is finding even a skerrick of fault with any who do in fact advocate such a drastic response to things. For who around has any other conceivable answer to the situation, I mean, really? No, really?

So what then of those who, also quite predictably even before the cursor's 'ink' has dried upon this post, automatically get their a into g into response to the above idea, and spout off to one and all about how hell would first have to freeze over before this once peaceful land succumbed to such incivility? That is, of allowing its bedevilled, threatened citizenry to have the selfsame rights and privileges as their 'enemies' (for want of a more appropriate term). It's difficult for them, I fully realize, for the 'do gooder liberals' as they're often referred to, to even countenance such a thought, of allowing this fair nation to succumb to the 'American disease' (as it's often regarded, if not stated as such).

And I readily concede that is a wholly valid concern, one that I also share, as in fact no doubt many other much more notable and respected kiwis do. Such as the likes of Gary McCormick, for example, who on today's regular National Radio Panel discussion signalled his own disquiet with the U.S. situation, and his consequent sympathy for the reality that President Obama, with all the power and authority apparently at his ready disposal, likewise can apparently do little about the matter himself. Yet also revealed his utter contempt for the present New Zealand status quo, which allows such atrocities - albeit on a far smaller scale it cannot but be admitted - to likewise occur with sickening and all-so-predictable regularity. Offering his own, no doubt merely tentative, solution of some graded system, like that now applied to driver licenses, whereby folk transgressing such legal and more importantly moral and ethical principles, accumulate 'points' which, upon reaching a certain level, send them directly to jail, without passing go or collecting a cent - let alone $200.

Some who know me well may be more than somewhat surprised, even appalled that I may now be classifiable among the 'redneck' element of society. So what caused me to come to this pass, you - or rather they - may well ask? And remember, I'm certainly not personally promoting such measures, only tolerating or rather 'entertaining', if for the briefest of moments, their possibility or rather plausibility. Essentially in response to those who would likewise automatically dismiss them out of hand. But perhaps it'd be more apt to say I simply see their eventual inevitability, as opposed to being at all inwardly supportive of such.

Perhaps the name Lois Dear means something to you. Her brutal, utterly unprovoked murder - back in 2006 I believe - changed everything for me. Indeed if it weren't for my lack of organization though certainly not motivation, I'd have long since - indeed I did once personally contact Norm Withers in Christchurch thereabouts - helped create a citizens-initiated petition in preparation for a citizens-initiated referendum on the matter.

For one 'simple' reason, and one alone. Lois Dear could well have been my own beloved Mum, brutally disposed of by some callous individual, whether stoked up on drugs or otherwise. By simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, despite likewise being someone who has spent her own life going about doing good and helping one and all as she ever has.

Yes, Mrs Dear was the means I believe the One Above used to unseal the springs of heartfelt sympathy, nay empathy, sealed up deep within me, for all those others like Mrs Dear whose lives have been wretchedly and miserably and mercilessly cut short - in Aotearoa-New Zealand, for starters. For, trite and well-worn as the saying may well be, there but for the grace of God could well have been my own dear Mum. And she too shares the name Lois - or rather Louise - the name also of my first childhood sweetheart (at the tender age of eight to nine, just after my parents split up).  

*Gladly/willingly, for those unfamiliar with 'Olden' English.

**Certainly no pun remotely intended.

Winston Peters Definitely On the Money this time, make no bones about it

Let me begin by stating up front any potential conflicts of interest I may - conceivably - be accused of. Yes, I was supremely hopeful, during my one and only bid for ((i)extra-curricular) political office back in the 2008 General Election, that New Zealand First might possibly have 'come to the party' - or in this instance to me, myself & I -  and endorsed my candidacy in Dunedin South. Especially seeing as I'd been on good and friendly - and yes, distinctly non-pecuniary - terms with the Maori couple (wo)manning its South Dunedin electorate office; besides which they weren't even standing a candidate themselves on that occasion. Though I'd freely admit, and openly avowed then - if not to these folk personally - that my basic, essential political philosophy was far closer to the Democrats for Social Credit - at one time the major player and force in Aotearoa's electoral landscape known as the Social Credit Political League - than to any other significant party, that was for sure.

Indeed 'Socred' as we used to call it is the one and only political party I've ever been - if involuntarily, against my then knowledge and wish - a member (if rather briefly) of, essentially feeling unable to subsume my rather eclectic judgments on this, that and especially the other to any one political party, however much I resonated with its essential philosophy or however many of its individual policies I subscribed to. And of recent times I've agreed with the likes of the Mana Party's John Minto that Winston and his parliamentary colleagues have denied ex-NZ Firster Brendan Horan the natural justice owed each and every citizen of our great nation. And moreover I hardly took Mr Peters' side in the pre-2008 election events concerning Owen Glenn and the donations scandal as I believe it came to be known, seeing his behaviour as rather dodgy at best, and certainly extremely ungrateful - like Helen Clark and her Labour Government colleagues - for all the largesse Mr Owen had once lavished in their particular direction.

In addition I cannot but admit to feeling deep-seated revulsion for the politics of race Mr Peters was widely perceived as bringing to Parliament and New Zealand politics in the lead-up to the 1996 election in particular, and so I've had serious concerns about related immigration policies he and his party have often advocated since - above everything else how NZ First and especially Mr Peters have oftentimes chosen to couch the rhetoric they employed thereabouts. But having said all of that I nevertheless have found myself - on one occasion, 2002, (ii)despite the aforesaid being especially noticeable then, supporting them electorally (it should have included 2011, and almost was as I had a sudden 'inspiration' to do so at the very last moment in the polling booth) - and have generally found myself closer to their positions than to any other truly viable political force on the scene. And especially so on so-called 'moral issues', such as prostitution 'reform', civil unions and '(iii)gay' marriage, not to mention smacking: though admittedly upon the latter their stance was much more muted than might have been expected. However on matters economic I've also ever been in broad agreement, their sensible centre-left approach fitting me well, though of course both National and Labour at one time (as recently as the late seventies, even early eighties in fact) were essentially socially conservative and economically left-of-centre as the (iv)Winston First Party is today.

Having stated all the foregoing let me confess to actually being impressed today, during Parliament's notorious Question Time, with Winston Peters' exceedingly cautious and extremely measured (v)approach and presentation of his primary question, as well as each follow-up 'supplementary' he was allowed. Yes, he did fail to 'rark things up', as they say, and didn't engage in any of the petty grandstanding that he's usually (perhaps oftentimes justly) accused of, and definitely not the (vi)rather childish smirking and 'for the cameras' cheap ridicule that Mr Key and certain of his colleagues employed in response. And moreover he stuck to his guns, responding involuntarily under his breath about what an 'outrage' it was for the Speaker, David Carter, to - rather immediately, even seemingly automatically - assign his basic charge 'out of order' as if he'd been imputing actual corruption to the Minister in question, Judith Collins, which was clearly not the case. At least Peters could have hardly been accused of explicitly doing so, the most that could've been laid to his charge being that he had called into question the Minister's probity or rather lack thereof in lodging her expected returns to Parliament's Pecuniary Interests' Register - which I suppose, it might well be assumed, and seemingly was here by Speaker Carter, he thus implied was a deliberate, hence corrupt, action or rather inaction on her part. And so consequently he certainly did, and once again, get thrown out on his ear by the Speaker - ostensibly for failing to follow usual parliamentary protocol; or persisting therein after being duly cautioned.

Though methinks - and for a regular listener to Parliament like myself I feel entitled to speak with a modicum of 'authority' - the much more likely reason for Mr Peters' ejection from the Chamber was, as happens on a rather regular basis with Mr Carter as Speaker - wholly unlike with his well- (and even internationally-) esteemed predecessor, Lockwood Smith - Mr Peters had not only dared to challenge his ruling, and moreover his (moral) authority in the situation, but thus seemingly affronted David Carter, the man, himself. Though it could easily be argued that such ridiculous rulings, seemingly on an exponentially rising basis of recent times, are ipso facto opening themselves up to the very sort of ridicule and disorder the Speaker then accuses such as Mr Peters as causing. And may I even go so far as to assert that in this if in no other single instance, Mr Speaker appeared to actually pre-empt - not very hard with Mr Peters' well-signposted intention to raise his much-anticipated question today - the gist of what Mr Peters was intending to get at, and thus prematurely ruled all such questions' 'inferences and implications' out of order before they were even raised. Giving himself as Speaker a rather easy own goal (in his determination to maintain his own beloved mini-fiefdom, such as it is.)

Though, later on, reviewing the much-anticipated 'showdown at the parliamentary corral' on the two major TV news bulletins and accordingly feeling less convinced than before of my own understanding of what had transpired, I'm actually glad I initially listened on radio, as I'm convinced I was able to follow proceedings in a far less biased manner, appraising the words themselves and the manner in which they were spoken, presented and responded to, without any considerations of the usual visual nonsense that can so easily impede one's better judgment. And so let me say in no uncertain terms that Winston Peters' primary question and related line of questioning was not only couched, in both tone and content, in most reasonable, moderate terms, but, what's more to the point - (vii)however much propaganda to the contrary promoted by John Key and his ready array of sycophantic media acolytes (such as Larry Williams) and even National Radio reporters in this instance - the farthest thing from "incoherent" that one could claim. If anything the question was boringly simple and straightforward, and moreover as clear as daylight - but nevertheless, indeed perhaps for that very reason, thus unerringly zeroed in on its target and hit the bullseye. And I also suspect that the P.M.'s own immediate devaluing of Peters' 'bombshell' was rather more feigned, carefully-orchestrated and scripted for public consumption and the hordes of kiwis for whom he can never seemingly do any wrong than to any actual consideration of the concerns Winston expressed. Key's response was just too automatic knee-jerk reflexive and inconsistent with Peters' actual questions.

But finally, and by no means least, to pretend or make out, as Mr Key and his parliamentary colleagues so effectively have, that what is contained on the MPs' register of pecuniary interests is of relatively minimal consequence in the overall scheme of things, is, one cannot but admit, a brilliant political hat trick on the Government's part. Only problem is that the same standard is never applied to the likes of relative political newbies like David Shearer (when in New York) or other less popular MPs and/or ministers. But hey, Ms Collins is, after all, only the Minister of Justice, and, dearies, "leave 'er alone - she's gone through enough of late, what with all these nasty accusations and the like", and moreover the PM understanding her predicament by sending her home on sick leave for 5 days. Yeah, right: tell that to Maurice Williamson. Oh and while you're at it, pass the sentiment along to Pansy Wong, I'm sure she'll be equally sympathetic -not.

Afterthought: Sadly, for those of us who hope for and expect better from him, Winston has once again let himself and his side down - for all those who followed Wednesday's Question Time or rather General Debate. Imagining he'd been cunningly, strategically thinking outside the square and had actually decided to use the GD format for launching his main argument to reveal all upon Justice Minister Judith Collins - thus seemingly giving the Government false, cold comfort that things would go better in Parliament that day - that wish was rapidly deflated by Mr Peters' subsequent mini-tirade, it moreover soon becoming apparent things were about to spectacularly backfire in his very face. How so? Well, by simply - apparently - practising the usual sort of double standards here Peters so readily accuses his various (multitude of) opponents of - something, in fact which, on the floors of Parliament, has been known more than once to give rise to accusations of the dreaded (viii)'h' word - a definite political no-no in those unhallowed chambers.

(i) I did stand twice - and was elected overwhelmingly, possibly even unanimously, on both occasions (should have 'quit while I was ahead', eh) - but admittedly none of my classmates (in the 4th and 6th forms) happened to covet being on our high school's (rather activist) student council.

(ii) Why? Essentially because genetic modification/engineering was the one decisive issue that, upon P.M. Helen Clark's calling of a snap election, catapulted me down ipso pronto to the local Registrar of Electors to sign up for the coming poll. To say that I - I suspect like many other kiwis - was somewhat underwhelmed with the Greens', at least as indicated by then co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, rather hastily and needlessly backtracking from their - momentarily - courageous and decisive stance thereabouts, rather understates matters. Anyhow, the upshot is that I found, of the various parties also opposing a relaxing of the moratorium - including the likes of the (erstwhile) Alliance and (suddenly also) Jim Anderton's Progressives, United NZ and NZ First - only the latter was truly 'my cup of [strictly herbal, non-caffeinated and tannined] tea'. (For all the aforementioned reasons.) And did indeed deliver upon their pledge/policy, supporting - with a sizeable 13 of the 22 or so total - the wholly unsuccessful (as it transpired) attempt to get the moratorium extended.

(iii) No, the deliberate hijacking of the English language and, moreover, a perfectly good word with a bit of a pedigree to match, doesn't and has never met my approval.

(iv) Forgive me, Winston, I couldn't resist the obvious - if media and politically inspired - dig.

(v) Actually quite characteristic of Mr Peters since making his typically colourful and flamboyant return to Parliament in 2011 - however much and frequent the monotonous and predictably unthinking standard media commentary to the contrary. As is often said, repeating an untruth frequently doesn't thereby automatically transform it into a fact.

(vi) I somehow suspect they're just following their Textor & Crosby admen and women, who've instructed them: 'it's the baffle 'em with bullshit approach, stupid!'

(vii) Perhaps understandably few media folk readily forgo a ready-made opportunity to take Winston down a peg or two, but methinks they do so based upon a sporting-possessed nation's obsession to always find and pick winners and losers, and certainly not from any noble or even basic journalistic desire to glean what actually may be the real facts of the matter. Thus essentially falling into the very trap they would themselves often accuse Winston Peters of manufacturing, missing the run-of-the-mill wood of the forest for all the multi-coloured and resplendent trees contained therein. But no, that Mr Peters was soon thereafter sent out of the House on a rather spurious (and arguably undemocratic) technicality was all that ultimately mattered evidently - whether justifiably or not in this instance didn't bother such commentators a single whit.    

(viii) For good 'ole hypocrisy, no less.

(ix) One other potential conflict of interest has just occurred to me: a well-taken photo of Winston Peters in the mid-90s with my politically active Dad and his wife might well seem to imply such (at least among my wider family). But seeing as my Dad was only ever (far as I'm aware, anyhow) a member of the New Labour Party (and so probably later the Alliance as well), then perhaps that's not a hanging offence (on my part) after all. I'm hoping, anyhow!

Maurice Williamson, M.P. for Pakuranga: Ready-made Fall Guy for an Interest-laden Government

For once, to my shock and horror, a national media mogul 'took the words right out of my mouth' (to adopt the phraseology in Meat Loaf's old hit): that is, when TV3's The Nation host Lisa Owen cited Maurice Williamson as the Government's 'fall guy' in the present political landscape. Indeed that rather understates my reaction to Ms Owen this Sunday morning in regards to her (justifiably) lengthy interview with the former National Minister. For she gave him not only a far better 'interrogation' than did longtime presenter Susan Wood on TV1's equivalent 'Q & A' the previous hour, but I would argue a much fairer and more balanced, justifiably sympathetic 'grilling'; for she still spoke a mile a minute and took no prisoners in terms of getting every last ounce of response out of the obviously physically (and emotionally) exhausted but nevertheless quite coherent and persuasive Mr Williamson. Irrespective the long-serving Pakuranga M.P. certainly acquitted himself well and admirably in both instances, and especially so in view of his evidently having gone without shuteye and food ever since his personal misfortune broke on all and sundry last Thursday.

All too predictably, within a lickety-split Maurice Williamson was seized upon by P.M. John Key as the all-atoning fall guy or scapegoat for a Government long since under (often just) fire for two issues in particular, those of 'the Chinese connection' - i.e. of power, money and influence in New Zealand politics; and the National Administration's arguably lax response to domestic violence in God's Own (see for example the ACC's problematic non-dealing with sexual violence claimants in recent years, and, against the backdrop of the apparent marked decrease in crime 'across the board' throughout the land since National took office, seemingly only ever-increasing instances of sexual assault and domestic violence under the Government's watch.)

Hearing well-known political commentators - the Edwards Brothers I'll term them (the blogger Bryce Edwards of the University of Otago's Political Studies Department on Newstalk ZB's Friday evening 'Panel' discussion and Brent Edwards, Radio National's parliamentary correspondent on the public broadcaster's parallel programme at about the same time) - sound off on the matter, I found myself agreeing with Bryce to a point, insofar as he suggested Labour had been responding appropriately thus far - if in an understandably more measured way than usual in view of their own closeted skeletons from yesteryear. But no doubt that was only because I hadn't happened to hear any news reports of their response full stop. For to his suggestion that they were still a little late in getting off the starting blocks upon the matter I couldn't disagree more.

As far as I'm concerned, their one and only useful response thus far has been their complete silence, though all too typically this was soon cancelled out by their rather predictable reversion to good 'ole partisan politics - fully 'accepting' said ex-minister's guilt thus pre-empting the chance of his being proven innocent. Much as they've readily devoured each and every scandal engulfing their political opponents ever since they grabbed Tuku Morgan's undies firmly between both teeth back in early 1997 (or late 1996) and ran with them for all they were worth (or weren't!). Though it could well be argued that National has likewise done as much, and every bit as unscrupulously, when itself in Opposition.

Did it - (apparently) not - ever occur to them that instead of adopting el usual approach of playing up and unduly magnifying each and every inference gleaned from all such instances of indiscretion and alleged corruption then circulating all applicable innuendoes thereupon often and long enough, that there existed a ready if much less politically partisan alternative? That a much slower and more thoughtful, nuanced and considered approach might well have earned them much more credit with the general public? Even - God forbid - the very chance that Maurice might well be, as National Radio's Catherine Ryan commented to her comedian duo before Friday's midday news, actually telling it just as it in fact was - i.e. the full quid.

For 'as we all know' truth is indeed often a lot stranger than fiction, Mr Williamson's story being all the more believable for having certain elements which to a superficial critic might well initially have stood him in an unfavourable light. The very implausibility of his story, or rather the various strands and threads of it - just as a number of witnesses at a crime scene appear to superficial observers to have somewhat contradictory accounts, which, being perfectly human, they do, but that's hardly the point - thus ever so counterintuitively lending the very ring of truth to it (just as Pakuranga's own cheesy but unforgettable Colgate toothpaste smile was declared as doing on the TV ads in olden days!)

But no, like all 'good' political operators - with the slight exception of Grant Robertson, who made the apt if obvious comment that Judith Collins ought to have (long since) done the same, i.e. resigned - they soon swung into routine partisan denunciation and (sheeting home of due) opprobrium. Moreover they chose to characterize Williamson's apparent connection with, and moreover alleged advocacy on behalf of, someone involved in domestic violence in the darkest possible light, as such a thing readily suggested a red flag to a much-cherished constituency of theirs: naturally, as ever, assuming as most such middle-class 'intelligentsia' and identity politics' individuals ever do, that each and every instance of such crime is perpetrated by a man against a woman, when *well-conducted surveys by the likes of the arguably lefter than left University of Otago have long since shown that not to be the case. Indeed in a study they did female against male domestic violence was (at least quantitatively) 'greater' or more frequent than the converse.

In other words, for Maurice Williamson's involvement with any individual implicated in such a crime - convicted as yet or otherwise, which seems to be debatable seeing as Parliament's Speaker once again enforced the sub judice rule upon the parliamentary discussions thereof, though some have alleged said immigrant has already been indicted, only not yet sentenced - one and only one possible interpretation is possible: the MP must have one motive and one only in contacting the police, i.e. to be attempting an intervention on said individual's behalf to get him off said charges. The implication of course is clear: domestic violence is presumably of no great concern to a National M.P. or Minister, though of course no possible rationale for making such a general inference or rather slur upon said politicians as a group is really feasible.

Except of course good old left-wing prejudice against any and every 'Tory' politico, assuming the very worst in terms of male chauvinism, sexism etcetera. Because if you spread such innuendoes and inferences long enough, no doubt some of your mud will eventually stick. (Though I'd readily grant that much the same could be said vis-a-vis the typical line of slurs which right-of-centre politicoes themselves, and their media fellow-travellers, often make about their left-wing opponents. Yes, politics is ever politics, whatever the source thereof!)

Perhaps if they'd rather adopted the following approach they'd have - quite justly and justifiably - earned kudos from one and all, including Yours Truly: praised Maurice Williamson's rapid acceptance of responsibility for making a wrong call and accordingly deciding to quit his ministerial posts without delay, just as Labour's much-esteemed David Parker did himself during Labour's last tenure, to a virtual standing ovation from one and all in Parliament, including the National Party; made the obvious and logical comparison with Justice Minister Judith Collins' own predicament, calling upon her - as Mr Robertson did - to follow suit, and questioning (as they also have) why the Prime Minister seems to be adopting a different and inconsistent approach in the two instances; and perhaps then add that the charge of deliberate interference by Mr Williamson seemed completely out of character for someone well-known and noted for being a very able constituency advocate.

That though the matter certainly 'appeared' to put Mr Williamson in a rather unfavourable light, there could well be a quite innocent explanation for his behaviour which would actually give the lie to the only too obvious insinuation - admittedly pleasing for a Labour Party only too eager for fresh scandals to use against the Government of the day - thus elicited by said situation. Showing a refreshing and admittedly wholly unexpected impartiality and even-handedness which could take the public completely off guard and even, wonder of wonders, thus make them more inclined to vote for them. But doubtless such noble and lofty considerations rarely enter the minds - much less the hearts - of today's politicians. But dreams are ever free.

Disclaimer: 1) Having had my own words and meanings and intentions wrested and misrepresented by media and others, including political opponents and especially officious bureaucrats, over the decades, I concede I can rather easily and readily relate to, and empathize with, anyone else going through the ringer re the same. 2) I'm surprised to find myself thus going out of my way to argue the case for someone who I've oftentimes been critical of over the years, everything from Maurice Williamson's radical laissez-faire free market views to his botched re-introduction of five-ten year driver licences in the late 1990s, through to his recent acclamation by the international 'rainbow coalition' of homosexual activists for his strong stance and memorable speech in support of the Marriage Amendment Act - i.e. Gay Marriage Equality legislation.

As for the usually sensible 'the Two's' (i.e. Pam Corkery and Tim Roxborough) panning Mr Williamson as per his future employment prospects - "no-one'd employ him"; and disparagingly comparing his physical-emotional state on TV today with those of well-composed flood victims in Christchurch, let me say this. Though their comparison with and contrast between those ever markedly-composed sufferers from Christchurch's dreadful ongoing trials and tribulations and the ex-Minister seem rather salient, methinks they'd also be among those only all too ready to criticize the male of the species - especially public leadership thereof - for failing to show such emotions in the circumstances.

Interestingly the very term 'fall guy' immediately sprang to mind upon the announcement of Mr Williamson's resignation last week, as had the song 'Candle in the Wind' soon after the death of Princess Diana 17 years ago - who doesn't remember exactly where they were? - which indeed was itself 'prescient' of a sort, for Elton John almost immediately thereafter reworked his much-celebrated hit into 'England's Rose' for Princess Di's funeral service.

And one thing I hadn't realized and now celebrate, was not only Mr Williamson's good 'ole oh-so-kiwi (generally) common sense approach to this, that and the next thing, but moreover his (apparently relatively uncommon) understanding, appreciation - and that in a practical way - of the real role required of a local, constituency member of Parliament, an electorate M.P.. Which I'd argue is not only streaks - indeed light years I suspect - ahead of most of his own party compatriots and  parliamentary colleagues more generally, but perhaps unequalled - anecdotally anyhow - by any other MP save the likes of Te Tai Tokerau's Hone Harewira.  

*Indeed in the course of Yours Truly's 'mousebitten' approach to research and gleaning from eclectic sources of all sorts, I just so happened to uncover a similar bit of research info - from a late 70s'/early 80s' issue of none other than that red rag of extreme feminism, Ms Magazine - that is specifically cited and noted by its founding editor, Gloria Steinem. However, as might be expected in the circumstances, Ms Steinem automatically downplayed and attempted to discredit the implications of said research - conducted by herself among others - assuming, as such ideologues ever do, extenuating circumstances (I suppose of ye 'ole provocation variety) for those (women) upon the other (dishing out) end of such abuse. In other words women are never actually responsible for such domestic violence even when they are most assuredly so!

As a lifetime hoarder, various magazines of me and my siblings still inhabit the lower recesses of our abode - everything from Ms Magazine to my beloved Gram's Modern Maturitys and Let's Live (and Thursdays and Mushrooms) through to the ever-perennial NZ Listeners, Times and Newsweeks, not to mention our beloved childhood mags such as Look and Learn and World of Wonders.