So revealed the affable Hillary Barry - alongside her simply incomparable sidekick - upon tonight's 'Seven Sharp', as they showed anecdotal interviews done with both Americans and kiwis, the latter apparently all within 100 metres or so of the Birkenhead (Community) Library. Hard to say which was more plain-as-daylight evident - staggering - simply awful: the respondents' ability to recall *even just one book they'd ever read, or their clear as the proverbial mud utter cluelessness - in the case of many of them (of either younger or older generations, but especially the former, and **surprisingly more so among the female participants) - the majority evidently hardly even aware of what a book actually was.
One particularly stunningly bright gal even gave the interviewer an odd, quizzical, double-take look, conjecturing as to whether a magazine constituted a book...!!!
"Good God" - which I say with all due reverence, addressing the Almighty with the dignity He (and only He) ever deserves: "help us all!"
*In the American sample only one in four could recall the title of a book they'd - ever! - read, though truth be told, I'd doubt those Aucklanders sampled here - and in what's a well-to-do, affluent as suburb to boot - statistically outdid the yanks.
**In view of the anecdotal observation (of many, through the years) that - at least in New Zealand - women (at least of a previous generation) tend to read books an awful lot more than do men.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Bill English, Now Another Former (National Party) Member of Parliament (Clutha-Southland): Bowing Out With Old-Fashioned Civility, Good Humour and Grace
'They say' one learns more about 'our' politicians from their opening (maiden) and closing (valedictory) addresses in Parliament's debating chamber than the rest of the time they spend up in Wellington 'on our behalf'. Whether that is true in every instance is of course highly debatable, and doubtless oftentimes wholly untrue, but in the case of William *Simon English, perhaps more true than for most. Anyhow, he completed his 29-year - and precisely 10,000 day - stay in New Zealand's unhallowed corridors of political power with what can only be termed, and is widely acknowledged as being, a great valedictory: one which I consider displayed real panache and aplomb - stylistic flair, to be sure, but even more some real, nitty-gritty, and moreover meaningful and memorable substance.
But first, may I make a couple disclaimers: and yes, admittedly this has been written somewhat 'after the event', and even - today - is being completed on the very day, and just as I hear for the first time that Mr English will now be referred to as a Sir. Be that (latter fact) as it well may - and it matters not one iota to this commentator, anyhow, it's hardly a sign of real sainthood simply to have been acknowledged, in however high-falutin' a fashion, as a knight, a dame, a lady or a sir (in the annual Queens Honour's List or in the New Years Honours). Either in New Zealand or anywhere else.
And moreover, and more pertinently by far, though long a contemporary of the political fortunes of **Bill English, of his rise and rise and rise - and then fall - and then rise and rise and rise, and again, eventual and final fall, I have very mixed views about the politician let alone the policies he espoused and pursued and the principles he arguably stood for - or oftentimes compromised, depending upon one's viewpoint. For the record, I tended to think well of him...except for four things in particular.
These were and are, as follows. Firstly, his sudden about-face upon his fundamental moral/religious principles on becoming Prime Minister, to wit the issue of homosexual marriage: vociferously and persuasively opposing such and maintaining it would insidiously serve to undermine the age-old institution of marriage (if my memory serves me aright), then recently declaring that the sky hadn't fallen in as he'd expected and so it really hadn't been such a big deal after all.
Secondly, his unwillingness - as leader of the entire nation - to be willing to subject his own (Roman Catholic) communion, let alone state institutions throughout the land, to the sort of proper sexual/psychological abuse inquiry that has been so effective and successful in Australia especially, and thus stand up for the victims of this scourge upon society and individual 'souls'.
Thirdly and fourthly, his rather shady, vague and more pertinently, highly questionable and problematic involvement in what's become known as the 'Todd Barclay Affair'; and - from both my recollection and moreover, the confirmation of then-contemporary newspapers - his continual denial of a pending challenge to his then leader, now 'Dame' Jenny Shipley, until of course he expeditiously mounted just such an extremely effective coup d'etat.
But be all that preceding guff as it very well may...and taking away not an iota from any or all of it: English made a number of very notable and memorable and moreover highly commendable and useful, important points in his valedictory speech which not only deserve a mention, they warrant placing upon the record for years, even decades to come - if our present world has that long, which is extremely unlikely. But nevertheless... .
Anyhow, let me cite a number of these (in bullet-point fashion, as seems most convenient) and then comment upon (some of) them, as the case may be. Firstly, let me simply quote (parts of) some of his best one-liners, the standouts among them anyway, for due reflection and consideration.
*"Everybody can teach you something" - the pauper as well as the prince "has something useful to tell you", so "listen to everybody": it's "an excellent way to get/arrive at the best product/decisions."
*"Jack's as good as his master." So "give everybody a fair go", "Treat everyone with respect and kindness."
*"Stay grounded in the real world" (rather than putting on airs and graces).
*"[The] integrity of the individual person" "matters much more than petty (bureaucratic) processes". "[We] need to be sensitive to the plight of suffering, institutionally-used and -abused individuals."
*"Just throwing money at everyone (and everything) is extremely unwise", since money-showering/spraying was ***"no substitute for well-targeted/focused/directed help". It was "(far) better to back people to make the changes they need to make (in their own lives)."
And head and shoulders above all his other insightful, admittedly simple but simply profound observations upon New Zealand's (and doubtless the Western World's) political scene was this one: "the dangerous complacency of good intentions." What others have called 'do-gooderism', and still others 'God-bothering'.
Opposing the establishing of yet another royal commission, this time upon the need for proper 'social investment' in citizens in welfare dependency, this much-praised, increasing focus of the National Government has been seen as English's own baby. Though he cited it in another breath entirely, National's ongoing liaison with the Maori Party over Whanau Ora (from early days) was a case in point: it had been "an excellent programme" which "exemplified these very (local, grass-roots) values/principles" of helping the individual on a case-by-case basis (as opposed to simply showering them with money).
Bill English also heaped praise upon (former Maori Party co-leader) Tariana Turia for her involvement in this and other such innovations, "giving credit where credit is due"; likewise recalling his own hands-on engagement with the 'iwi group' and its intense discussions, the profound lessons he learnt from these, and their singular effectiveness and successful outcome, citing them as being the highlight of his own tenure in Parliament.
Recollecting some memorable personal examples, and without engaging in self-pity, English yet stoically reflected upon the innate unfairness of the politician's lot - "Yes, people blame politicians for anything and everything" - and how being heartily bashed about by the brother of one successfully-enrolled Olympic/Commonwealth athlete taught English some extremely valuable lessons in personal composure under very stressful, difficult circumstances when fortitude was required.
On a similarly personal level - but vis-a-vis his political colleagues - English lavished high praise on his erstwhile leader. John Key, (who indeed was unquestionably one of, if not in fact New Zealand's all-time most popular politician/s/leader/s), had 'relentless optimism' ("in dealing with everyone, every day, on every detail of every issue".
Even more generous was his singling out of Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee. "In a wonderful testimony to his sterling character", "displaying the sense of selflessness required" in his handling of the Christchurch recovery, GB "never once mentioned his own (family's) personal circumstances", which BE "years later discovered had been dire".
Bill English exemplified (and enunciated in his valedictory) an old-fashioned individual-centred (as opposed to individualistic) ethic, political purposes formed and fashioned by his Roman Catholic convictions ("which often coincided with those of the National Party"). And which were based upon mutual respect (between citizens and their government), and humility and teachability on the part of politicians. Yes, he well understood, from personal experience, the serious limits of big government.
Yes, good 'ole-fashioned kiwi values which no-one would argue with, based upon giving everyone 'a fair go'. A pity then that those various governments of which English was an integral part rarely seemed to practice these oh-so-worthy virtues and values.
For me, Bill English's own star never shone out brighter than when he - around 2010-2012 or so - decried and earnestly inveighed against the 'moral failure' of simply building ever more prisons; rightly understanding that that in itself represented an utter failure of our society. Though truth be told his own Government kept on building ever more and bigger ones.
In conclusion, Sir Bill (William Simon) English in his justly-celebrated final address to Parliament
espoused and advocated some, indeed many, just, praiseworthy and significant goals, aims and aspirations, ideals and values - let there be no mistake. Ones which deserve commendation and note - from anyone who happened to say or promote them, in fact.
And who would dare to second-guess him or even argue that it''s easy to sound all high and mighty as you prepare to exit the scene without really achieving said aims and objectives, or at most only getting the actual debate underway? Or that he only really ever managed to get a few of those well-intentioned ideas up-and-running or posted upon the political dartboard of actual accomplishments?
Well admittedly, some verily might, but that's for another day (of the historians' assessments and all). But it is somewhat more problematic for one's legacy if it is argued - and in Mr English's case it can easily be - that the policies he and the various long-serving Governments of which he himself constituted a not inconsiderable or powerful part actually often completely contradicted such aims and objectives, even at times effectively nullifying them; whether that be by deliberate design or simply unfortunate (by-product) consequence.
And nowhere more glaring can that, those innate contradictions between the earnest politician's wistful reflections and the actual, on-the-ground realities...of what actually transpired under his (and his party's) long leadership of this nation...be seen, that in the widespread de-institutionalization of New Zealand's mental health facilities from the time of the fourth Labour Government on into the nineties when English's own party was ruling the nation's roost.
Yes, there was indeed "massive disruption" to peoples' lives, great dislocation and all the rest. The pertinent question, however, for Mr English was and will remain: did his, the Bolger (and then Shipley) Governments reverse any of these awful changes?
Yes, the question is rhetorical, and the answer is unequivocal, and reflects poorly upon English et al. Hardly! Not on your nelly!
No, the gulf between the very best of intentions, that Mr, I mean, Sir Bill English, himself bemoans and decries and the actual, on-the-ground realities that in fact played out while he and his mates manned and womaned the ship of state is a not inconsiderable one, and indeed cannot feasibly be bridged...except maybe by political spin-doctoring and the like. Because unavoidably words like inconsistent, self-contradictory and even hypocritical spring readily to mind, and cannot easily be refuted. And I've only cited one particular glaring instance in this case.
However, since none of us either can really know or indeed has any right to sit in judgment upon another's true motives or intentions, I'll conclude by giving Bill English the benefit of the doubt and let his own final, self-chosen 'epitaph' be his 'final word' here. After quoting a poignant line from a favourite James K Baxter poem, English mentioned how his brother ****Connor informed him 'the other day' that he'd be leaving Parliament exactly 10,000 days to the day he'd first been elected.
Footnoting Baxter's inimitable words - These unshaped isles...won't fit/fix the chisel of the mind - English signed off with deep feeling, barely holding back the tears, by saying that he believed and was satisfied (in his own mind) that every day (he'd been in Parliament) he'd turned up to take his turn up/on the chisel...
In conclusion, it sadly seems to me that Bill English himself contradicted the very things, values and principles he so ably and often articulated, advocated and championed - aka the suddenly-acceptable Marriage Amendment Act, his inexplicable refusal to countenance a commission of inquiry into state and private/religious et al institutional abuse, his disingenuousness re mounting a challenge to his former leader - one of the worst-kept secrets in modern NZ politics - or his questionable, unethical involvement in the Todd Barclay Affair, or, for that matter, in apparently 'rorting the system' (in terms of rental subsidies allowed for politicians) for his own (family's) financial benefit.
While none of that makes him the worst politician of all time - by a very long shot or stretch of the imagination - unfortunately it does tarnish his 'high-integrity' political brand, in my view anyway, and somewhat irretrievably. However, in championing a series of 'old-fashioned' political values when they were increasingly going out of fashion, in maintaining a level of personal decency and civility and simple good manners at all times in his political discourse and interactions with other politicians and the public-at-large whether inside or outside the chambers of Parliament, and in sticking it out and keeping on keeping on however his oft-waxing, oft-waning political fortunes were fluctuating, after just under thirty years in the high pressure cooker that is modern Western and kiwi political life Bill English can hold his head high that he seemingly survived with his *****personal integrity intact.
*A name he shares with two of National's most outstanding MPs of my lifetime: former Minister of the Environment/MSD & all sorts, plus later ambassador to France, Simon Upton; and former Minister of Finance and one-time wannabe (and highly likely) National Party leader (& future PM) Simon Power.
**Curiously, he (former National Party Deputy Leader) and John Key, thrice elected Prime Minister in landslide proportions (in terms of MMP, anyhow), respectively shared the exact ages of two of my older siblings, one of whom I'd still maintain shared a remarkable facial resemblance to Mr Key; or is that now also Sir John Key? Whatever.
***English even claimed the use of the word 'customer' in the WINZ system of Government-beneficiary relationships was a personal triumph of his; that it was intended to put it upon the basis of treating the welfare recipient with more respect and due deference and the like, rather than as
merely another faceless statistic. I must sadly inform - and can verily assure - Mr/Sir Bill English et al that in practice it's done, if anything, the very opposite; if he'll excuse the unintended 'pun' - of all his 'good intentions'.
****A former Federated Farmers Chairman (occasionally on Q&A and/or The Nation) whose face I noted having once encountered (the resemblance to Bill being uncanny) as I recalled having passed him outside NZ Post as I ensured I was on the Electoral Roll in the run-up to General Election 2002.
*****In his own mind anyway, though I well realize that the rental fiasco and the Barclay Affair have inevitably left at least a cloud of doubt and/or uncertainty over even that (in both my own and the eyes of many of the public, no doubt). But I at least am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (in both instances, however outwardly troubling), as neither seem to fit his public persona.
Though of course it has well been said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and none of us are immune to the subtle eroding effects of that inescapable aspect and reality of human nature. But for my part I believe a few have managed to do just that historically, to wit the biblical heroes and heroines Joseph and Daniel, each Prime Minister of the world-ruling heathen empires of their respective day/s, and Mordecai and Esther who also served as high official and even Queen in a similar context of a non-Jewish world-ruling empire.
So it can be done. And in our day and age such notable personages as Sir Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela, Robert Kennedy, George McGovern, even Barry Goldwater and Margaret Thatcher spring to mind. Sure, they might occasionally have infuriated the hell out of some, but true integrity is something else altogether, and cannot be so easily judged and determined, as some 'on the tip of my tongue' quote from Shakespeare would itself only corroborate...
But first, may I make a couple disclaimers: and yes, admittedly this has been written somewhat 'after the event', and even - today - is being completed on the very day, and just as I hear for the first time that Mr English will now be referred to as a Sir. Be that (latter fact) as it well may - and it matters not one iota to this commentator, anyhow, it's hardly a sign of real sainthood simply to have been acknowledged, in however high-falutin' a fashion, as a knight, a dame, a lady or a sir (in the annual Queens Honour's List or in the New Years Honours). Either in New Zealand or anywhere else.
And moreover, and more pertinently by far, though long a contemporary of the political fortunes of **Bill English, of his rise and rise and rise - and then fall - and then rise and rise and rise, and again, eventual and final fall, I have very mixed views about the politician let alone the policies he espoused and pursued and the principles he arguably stood for - or oftentimes compromised, depending upon one's viewpoint. For the record, I tended to think well of him...except for four things in particular.
These were and are, as follows. Firstly, his sudden about-face upon his fundamental moral/religious principles on becoming Prime Minister, to wit the issue of homosexual marriage: vociferously and persuasively opposing such and maintaining it would insidiously serve to undermine the age-old institution of marriage (if my memory serves me aright), then recently declaring that the sky hadn't fallen in as he'd expected and so it really hadn't been such a big deal after all.
Secondly, his unwillingness - as leader of the entire nation - to be willing to subject his own (Roman Catholic) communion, let alone state institutions throughout the land, to the sort of proper sexual/psychological abuse inquiry that has been so effective and successful in Australia especially, and thus stand up for the victims of this scourge upon society and individual 'souls'.
Thirdly and fourthly, his rather shady, vague and more pertinently, highly questionable and problematic involvement in what's become known as the 'Todd Barclay Affair'; and - from both my recollection and moreover, the confirmation of then-contemporary newspapers - his continual denial of a pending challenge to his then leader, now 'Dame' Jenny Shipley, until of course he expeditiously mounted just such an extremely effective coup d'etat.
But be all that preceding guff as it very well may...and taking away not an iota from any or all of it: English made a number of very notable and memorable and moreover highly commendable and useful, important points in his valedictory speech which not only deserve a mention, they warrant placing upon the record for years, even decades to come - if our present world has that long, which is extremely unlikely. But nevertheless... .
Anyhow, let me cite a number of these (in bullet-point fashion, as seems most convenient) and then comment upon (some of) them, as the case may be. Firstly, let me simply quote (parts of) some of his best one-liners, the standouts among them anyway, for due reflection and consideration.
*"Everybody can teach you something" - the pauper as well as the prince "has something useful to tell you", so "listen to everybody": it's "an excellent way to get/arrive at the best product/decisions."
*"Jack's as good as his master." So "give everybody a fair go", "Treat everyone with respect and kindness."
*"Stay grounded in the real world" (rather than putting on airs and graces).
*"[The] integrity of the individual person" "matters much more than petty (bureaucratic) processes". "[We] need to be sensitive to the plight of suffering, institutionally-used and -abused individuals."
*"Just throwing money at everyone (and everything) is extremely unwise", since money-showering/spraying was ***"no substitute for well-targeted/focused/directed help". It was "(far) better to back people to make the changes they need to make (in their own lives)."
And head and shoulders above all his other insightful, admittedly simple but simply profound observations upon New Zealand's (and doubtless the Western World's) political scene was this one: "the dangerous complacency of good intentions." What others have called 'do-gooderism', and still others 'God-bothering'.
Opposing the establishing of yet another royal commission, this time upon the need for proper 'social investment' in citizens in welfare dependency, this much-praised, increasing focus of the National Government has been seen as English's own baby. Though he cited it in another breath entirely, National's ongoing liaison with the Maori Party over Whanau Ora (from early days) was a case in point: it had been "an excellent programme" which "exemplified these very (local, grass-roots) values/principles" of helping the individual on a case-by-case basis (as opposed to simply showering them with money).
Bill English also heaped praise upon (former Maori Party co-leader) Tariana Turia for her involvement in this and other such innovations, "giving credit where credit is due"; likewise recalling his own hands-on engagement with the 'iwi group' and its intense discussions, the profound lessons he learnt from these, and their singular effectiveness and successful outcome, citing them as being the highlight of his own tenure in Parliament.
Recollecting some memorable personal examples, and without engaging in self-pity, English yet stoically reflected upon the innate unfairness of the politician's lot - "Yes, people blame politicians for anything and everything" - and how being heartily bashed about by the brother of one successfully-enrolled Olympic/Commonwealth athlete taught English some extremely valuable lessons in personal composure under very stressful, difficult circumstances when fortitude was required.
On a similarly personal level - but vis-a-vis his political colleagues - English lavished high praise on his erstwhile leader. John Key, (who indeed was unquestionably one of, if not in fact New Zealand's all-time most popular politician/s/leader/s), had 'relentless optimism' ("in dealing with everyone, every day, on every detail of every issue".
Even more generous was his singling out of Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee. "In a wonderful testimony to his sterling character", "displaying the sense of selflessness required" in his handling of the Christchurch recovery, GB "never once mentioned his own (family's) personal circumstances", which BE "years later discovered had been dire".
Bill English exemplified (and enunciated in his valedictory) an old-fashioned individual-centred (as opposed to individualistic) ethic, political purposes formed and fashioned by his Roman Catholic convictions ("which often coincided with those of the National Party"). And which were based upon mutual respect (between citizens and their government), and humility and teachability on the part of politicians. Yes, he well understood, from personal experience, the serious limits of big government.
Yes, good 'ole-fashioned kiwi values which no-one would argue with, based upon giving everyone 'a fair go'. A pity then that those various governments of which English was an integral part rarely seemed to practice these oh-so-worthy virtues and values.
For me, Bill English's own star never shone out brighter than when he - around 2010-2012 or so - decried and earnestly inveighed against the 'moral failure' of simply building ever more prisons; rightly understanding that that in itself represented an utter failure of our society. Though truth be told his own Government kept on building ever more and bigger ones.
In conclusion, Sir Bill (William Simon) English in his justly-celebrated final address to Parliament
espoused and advocated some, indeed many, just, praiseworthy and significant goals, aims and aspirations, ideals and values - let there be no mistake. Ones which deserve commendation and note - from anyone who happened to say or promote them, in fact.
And who would dare to second-guess him or even argue that it''s easy to sound all high and mighty as you prepare to exit the scene without really achieving said aims and objectives, or at most only getting the actual debate underway? Or that he only really ever managed to get a few of those well-intentioned ideas up-and-running or posted upon the political dartboard of actual accomplishments?
Well admittedly, some verily might, but that's for another day (of the historians' assessments and all). But it is somewhat more problematic for one's legacy if it is argued - and in Mr English's case it can easily be - that the policies he and the various long-serving Governments of which he himself constituted a not inconsiderable or powerful part actually often completely contradicted such aims and objectives, even at times effectively nullifying them; whether that be by deliberate design or simply unfortunate (by-product) consequence.
And nowhere more glaring can that, those innate contradictions between the earnest politician's wistful reflections and the actual, on-the-ground realities...of what actually transpired under his (and his party's) long leadership of this nation...be seen, that in the widespread de-institutionalization of New Zealand's mental health facilities from the time of the fourth Labour Government on into the nineties when English's own party was ruling the nation's roost.
Yes, there was indeed "massive disruption" to peoples' lives, great dislocation and all the rest. The pertinent question, however, for Mr English was and will remain: did his, the Bolger (and then Shipley) Governments reverse any of these awful changes?
Yes, the question is rhetorical, and the answer is unequivocal, and reflects poorly upon English et al. Hardly! Not on your nelly!
No, the gulf between the very best of intentions, that Mr, I mean, Sir Bill English, himself bemoans and decries and the actual, on-the-ground realities that in fact played out while he and his mates manned and womaned the ship of state is a not inconsiderable one, and indeed cannot feasibly be bridged...except maybe by political spin-doctoring and the like. Because unavoidably words like inconsistent, self-contradictory and even hypocritical spring readily to mind, and cannot easily be refuted. And I've only cited one particular glaring instance in this case.
However, since none of us either can really know or indeed has any right to sit in judgment upon another's true motives or intentions, I'll conclude by giving Bill English the benefit of the doubt and let his own final, self-chosen 'epitaph' be his 'final word' here. After quoting a poignant line from a favourite James K Baxter poem, English mentioned how his brother ****Connor informed him 'the other day' that he'd be leaving Parliament exactly 10,000 days to the day he'd first been elected.
Footnoting Baxter's inimitable words - These unshaped isles...won't fit/fix the chisel of the mind - English signed off with deep feeling, barely holding back the tears, by saying that he believed and was satisfied (in his own mind) that every day (he'd been in Parliament) he'd turned up to take his turn up/on the chisel...
In conclusion, it sadly seems to me that Bill English himself contradicted the very things, values and principles he so ably and often articulated, advocated and championed - aka the suddenly-acceptable Marriage Amendment Act, his inexplicable refusal to countenance a commission of inquiry into state and private/religious et al institutional abuse, his disingenuousness re mounting a challenge to his former leader - one of the worst-kept secrets in modern NZ politics - or his questionable, unethical involvement in the Todd Barclay Affair, or, for that matter, in apparently 'rorting the system' (in terms of rental subsidies allowed for politicians) for his own (family's) financial benefit.
While none of that makes him the worst politician of all time - by a very long shot or stretch of the imagination - unfortunately it does tarnish his 'high-integrity' political brand, in my view anyway, and somewhat irretrievably. However, in championing a series of 'old-fashioned' political values when they were increasingly going out of fashion, in maintaining a level of personal decency and civility and simple good manners at all times in his political discourse and interactions with other politicians and the public-at-large whether inside or outside the chambers of Parliament, and in sticking it out and keeping on keeping on however his oft-waxing, oft-waning political fortunes were fluctuating, after just under thirty years in the high pressure cooker that is modern Western and kiwi political life Bill English can hold his head high that he seemingly survived with his *****personal integrity intact.
*A name he shares with two of National's most outstanding MPs of my lifetime: former Minister of the Environment/MSD & all sorts, plus later ambassador to France, Simon Upton; and former Minister of Finance and one-time wannabe (and highly likely) National Party leader (& future PM) Simon Power.
**Curiously, he (former National Party Deputy Leader) and John Key, thrice elected Prime Minister in landslide proportions (in terms of MMP, anyhow), respectively shared the exact ages of two of my older siblings, one of whom I'd still maintain shared a remarkable facial resemblance to Mr Key; or is that now also Sir John Key? Whatever.
***English even claimed the use of the word 'customer' in the WINZ system of Government-beneficiary relationships was a personal triumph of his; that it was intended to put it upon the basis of treating the welfare recipient with more respect and due deference and the like, rather than as
merely another faceless statistic. I must sadly inform - and can verily assure - Mr/Sir Bill English et al that in practice it's done, if anything, the very opposite; if he'll excuse the unintended 'pun' - of all his 'good intentions'.
****A former Federated Farmers Chairman (occasionally on Q&A and/or The Nation) whose face I noted having once encountered (the resemblance to Bill being uncanny) as I recalled having passed him outside NZ Post as I ensured I was on the Electoral Roll in the run-up to General Election 2002.
*****In his own mind anyway, though I well realize that the rental fiasco and the Barclay Affair have inevitably left at least a cloud of doubt and/or uncertainty over even that (in both my own and the eyes of many of the public, no doubt). But I at least am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (in both instances, however outwardly troubling), as neither seem to fit his public persona.
Though of course it has well been said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and none of us are immune to the subtle eroding effects of that inescapable aspect and reality of human nature. But for my part I believe a few have managed to do just that historically, to wit the biblical heroes and heroines Joseph and Daniel, each Prime Minister of the world-ruling heathen empires of their respective day/s, and Mordecai and Esther who also served as high official and even Queen in a similar context of a non-Jewish world-ruling empire.
So it can be done. And in our day and age such notable personages as Sir Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela, Robert Kennedy, George McGovern, even Barry Goldwater and Margaret Thatcher spring to mind. Sure, they might occasionally have infuriated the hell out of some, but true integrity is something else altogether, and cannot be so easily judged and determined, as some 'on the tip of my tongue' quote from Shakespeare would itself only corroborate...
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Pretty Please Jacinda (Ardern) and Tracey (Martin): Just Let the Stand Children's Services Roxburgh children's village Stand: Yes, with Adequate Funding (to boot)
It's surely not a very big ask...is it? Amidst budget outlays last week of tens and hundreds of millions of Government-surplus induced funds for this, that and especially the other - to meet the endless medley of promises and pledges solemnly undertaken by the Opposition on last year's campaign trail - stands a seemingly rather small request from Central Otago for a measly three million. For no less than the 'Stand Children's Services Roxburgh children's village' (at one time Roxburgh Health Camp).
Providing 31 local, Roxburgh-based jobs, and, much more importantly, ongoing help annually for 380 traumatized, vulnerable kids, this is surely one of the standout institutions at the very coalface of the endemic social problems afflicting Aotearoa-New Zealand. Seemingly intractable matters that the constituent parties of our new Coalition Government profess to care so very much about; having argued incessantly and quite convincingly about the desperate need to fix once and for all, not only during last year's general election campaign, but for years prior.
Something's wrong here, surely? Something simply doesn't compute, doesn't 'add up'. So let's 'cut', as my former acting associates might have put it, in a brief 'discursion' to a seemingly unrelated topic:
On a 'Trending Now' repeat of one of her weekend interviews - with the Akina Foundation's 'Growing Social Enterprise' Louise Aitken - and for what interviewer Kim Hill herself characterized as a modest outlay of $5 million, a certain Maori-based initiative had just been granted funds to make a real difference. To make an impact through a wise and bold investment - of Government monies; into their own well-chosen (and apparently effective) pathways.
"Wunderbar!" as my German backpacker friends might put it. Money well spent - indeed. Putting one's money where one's mouth is, carefully targeting the funds required to where they would make the best and most successful impact. "Not rocket science, eh!" as ye average punter might have put it.
So Madames Ardern and Martin, we're all - even your recently-deposed opponent, the former P.M. (and social investment guru) Bill English - solidly (even philosophically) behind such carefully-delineated targets to achieve your impassioned pleas and aims to eradicate child poverty from God's Own. And to render whatsoever assistance is needed to NZ's PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) juvenile underclass, who, in the vast bulk of instances, through absolutely no fault of their own, have sadly ended up on the scrapheap of our society.
Yes, who can possibly argue with your well-intentioned aims and goals and priorities? Who indeed?
And likewise, who can possibly argue - especially yourselves, Prime Minister, Minister for (eradicating) Poverty, and Children's Minister, Tracey Martin - that the Roxburgh children's village is not an especially worthy recipient of just such - specially-targeted - help? Which moreover has been providing sorely-needed assistance for a very long time (since 1941): as the ODT (May 14th) puts it, 'an intensive, residential, wrap-around trauma service' for highly vulnerable children in the South.
A critically-situated service which experts, those 'on the ground' in this field who are fully conversant with what this long-running Roxburgh-based children's service has managed to achieve, tell us is simply without a peer (and, what's more, acceptable alternative) for the children involved; and hence is still needed by kids throughout the village's large catchment area (everything south of the Waitaki River). It is a longstanding child support facility that has literally resulted in changed lives.
As a fully qualified teacher aide myself, who admittedly (since 2002/2006, and a voluntary stint a couple years ago) has only limited experience in the field after being effectively sidetracked through some serious physical and mental health issues over the past decade, I can at least attest that through my personal interventions around a decade-and-a-half ago (spending a couple hours most weekdays), one young boy with major presenting behavioural issues was helped to turn his life around; at least for awhile thereafter (if sadly, not long-term), according to the intermediate principal I contacted a year or two down the track.
And so, no, not all interventions are ultimately successful, admittedly. But if they can help just such vulnerable youth even begin to get their fraught lives back on track, hey, let's not just arbitrarily jettison them; especially not without an adequate replacement in existence. And folks - that is, all politicians still seriously considering this (last-ditch appeal) - the last I heard the Stand Children's Services Roxburgh children's village was doing an effective job.
And surely, at the end of the day, Ms Ardern and Ms Martin - and I speak as one who's been vocally (and blogwise) highly supportive of you up till now - 'if it ain't broke, why (even try to) fix it (much less let it fall and fail)?' No, it's your absolute duty to admit you stuffed up here, have seen the error of your ways, and are indeed prepared to stump up now - however belatedly - with the needed cash.
Which surely isn't all that much - is virtually small change in the overall scheme of things, in light of your other budgetary expenditures. Hey, please do it - if not for any grand ideological imperatives, simply because these kids, who have so few advocates rooting for them in the real world, are counting upon you...to do the right thing...for and by them.
Pretty please, Prime Minister, and Minister Martin? And move forward without regrets. For the kids' sake.
Yours Sincerely (a long-time admirer of you both)
David Bernhardt
Providing 31 local, Roxburgh-based jobs, and, much more importantly, ongoing help annually for 380 traumatized, vulnerable kids, this is surely one of the standout institutions at the very coalface of the endemic social problems afflicting Aotearoa-New Zealand. Seemingly intractable matters that the constituent parties of our new Coalition Government profess to care so very much about; having argued incessantly and quite convincingly about the desperate need to fix once and for all, not only during last year's general election campaign, but for years prior.
Something's wrong here, surely? Something simply doesn't compute, doesn't 'add up'. So let's 'cut', as my former acting associates might have put it, in a brief 'discursion' to a seemingly unrelated topic:
On a 'Trending Now' repeat of one of her weekend interviews - with the Akina Foundation's 'Growing Social Enterprise' Louise Aitken - and for what interviewer Kim Hill herself characterized as a modest outlay of $5 million, a certain Maori-based initiative had just been granted funds to make a real difference. To make an impact through a wise and bold investment - of Government monies; into their own well-chosen (and apparently effective) pathways.
"Wunderbar!" as my German backpacker friends might put it. Money well spent - indeed. Putting one's money where one's mouth is, carefully targeting the funds required to where they would make the best and most successful impact. "Not rocket science, eh!" as ye average punter might have put it.
So Madames Ardern and Martin, we're all - even your recently-deposed opponent, the former P.M. (and social investment guru) Bill English - solidly (even philosophically) behind such carefully-delineated targets to achieve your impassioned pleas and aims to eradicate child poverty from God's Own. And to render whatsoever assistance is needed to NZ's PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) juvenile underclass, who, in the vast bulk of instances, through absolutely no fault of their own, have sadly ended up on the scrapheap of our society.
Yes, who can possibly argue with your well-intentioned aims and goals and priorities? Who indeed?
And likewise, who can possibly argue - especially yourselves, Prime Minister, Minister for (eradicating) Poverty, and Children's Minister, Tracey Martin - that the Roxburgh children's village is not an especially worthy recipient of just such - specially-targeted - help? Which moreover has been providing sorely-needed assistance for a very long time (since 1941): as the ODT (May 14th) puts it, 'an intensive, residential, wrap-around trauma service' for highly vulnerable children in the South.
A critically-situated service which experts, those 'on the ground' in this field who are fully conversant with what this long-running Roxburgh-based children's service has managed to achieve, tell us is simply without a peer (and, what's more, acceptable alternative) for the children involved; and hence is still needed by kids throughout the village's large catchment area (everything south of the Waitaki River). It is a longstanding child support facility that has literally resulted in changed lives.
As a fully qualified teacher aide myself, who admittedly (since 2002/2006, and a voluntary stint a couple years ago) has only limited experience in the field after being effectively sidetracked through some serious physical and mental health issues over the past decade, I can at least attest that through my personal interventions around a decade-and-a-half ago (spending a couple hours most weekdays), one young boy with major presenting behavioural issues was helped to turn his life around; at least for awhile thereafter (if sadly, not long-term), according to the intermediate principal I contacted a year or two down the track.
And so, no, not all interventions are ultimately successful, admittedly. But if they can help just such vulnerable youth even begin to get their fraught lives back on track, hey, let's not just arbitrarily jettison them; especially not without an adequate replacement in existence. And folks - that is, all politicians still seriously considering this (last-ditch appeal) - the last I heard the Stand Children's Services Roxburgh children's village was doing an effective job.
And surely, at the end of the day, Ms Ardern and Ms Martin - and I speak as one who's been vocally (and blogwise) highly supportive of you up till now - 'if it ain't broke, why (even try to) fix it (much less let it fall and fail)?' No, it's your absolute duty to admit you stuffed up here, have seen the error of your ways, and are indeed prepared to stump up now - however belatedly - with the needed cash.
Which surely isn't all that much - is virtually small change in the overall scheme of things, in light of your other budgetary expenditures. Hey, please do it - if not for any grand ideological imperatives, simply because these kids, who have so few advocates rooting for them in the real world, are counting upon you...to do the right thing...for and by them.
Pretty please, Prime Minister, and Minister Martin? And move forward without regrets. For the kids' sake.
Yours Sincerely (a long-time admirer of you both)
David Bernhardt
Friday, May 11, 2018
On the Imminent New Zealand Institutional Abuse Commission
Pursuant to (my blogpost) 'Jacindamania', and as previewed therein:
As to Prime Minister Ardern's relationship with New Zealand's churches/Christianity a la Aotearoa, though I'm prepared to believe she is quite well-intentioned - yes, I'm willing to give her the full benefit of the doubt at this stage of proceedings - her (and her Government's) decision to omit private institutions such as churches from the forthcoming commission of inquiry into historic (sexual and physical - and even psycho-emotional?) abuse in God's own...is a dreadful, misguided mistake.
And will serve no useful purpose at all. Even allowing for the inclusion of those in such private institutions where their referral/placement therein was due to the state itself; that still doesn't give it a broad enough ambit.
This has been strongly echoed, rather emphasized by a couple vocal victims, fellows who were the subjects of such abuse, who understandably simply cannot accept the limiting of the terms of reference in this regard. Nor should they; it simply makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Sure, I'll grant that Ms Ardern in particular is reluctant to and wary about needlessly antagonizing the Christian community here by otherwise apparently attempting to mount what might well appear a veritable witch-hunt aimed at said religious organizations, delving into all the ins and outs, the nitty-gritty of how said churches have conducted themselves over the past half century. That is quite, perfectly understandable, especially in view of how upset and outraged many of them were made by the last Labour Government's ongoing 'progressive' social legislation - though at the same time a large number of liberal churches were foremost in actively supporting said reforms.
Moreover, for P.M. Ardern - quite unlike former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark, it would seem - haled from a church/'Christian' background (though of course many evangelical believers and orthodox churches still regard the Mormons as a 'cult'), and so has an understandable personal stance ('skin in the game' so to speak) in the matter. And knows that, as I referred to a little earlier, sufficient offence and umbrage has already been given in recent years to said Christian community, and moreover is sure to come from the new Government, especially as the euthanasia and abortion overhauls are progressed during its first (or second) term.
The problem for Ardern and her government here, is that, having been made abundantly aware on numerous occasions over recent weeks and months (on RNZ National's Morning Report especially) - in relation to the commission of inquiry to be headed by former Governor General Sir Annan Satchanan - there's absolutely no good reason - no reasonable argument whatsoever - for restricting the mandate of said commission to only state-run institutions. No, absolutely none whatsoever.
Abuse, wherever it occurs, is an absolute scourge and knows no arbitrary physical bounds. Ever.
As to Prime Minister Ardern's relationship with New Zealand's churches/Christianity a la Aotearoa, though I'm prepared to believe she is quite well-intentioned - yes, I'm willing to give her the full benefit of the doubt at this stage of proceedings - her (and her Government's) decision to omit private institutions such as churches from the forthcoming commission of inquiry into historic (sexual and physical - and even psycho-emotional?) abuse in God's own...is a dreadful, misguided mistake.
And will serve no useful purpose at all. Even allowing for the inclusion of those in such private institutions where their referral/placement therein was due to the state itself; that still doesn't give it a broad enough ambit.
This has been strongly echoed, rather emphasized by a couple vocal victims, fellows who were the subjects of such abuse, who understandably simply cannot accept the limiting of the terms of reference in this regard. Nor should they; it simply makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Sure, I'll grant that Ms Ardern in particular is reluctant to and wary about needlessly antagonizing the Christian community here by otherwise apparently attempting to mount what might well appear a veritable witch-hunt aimed at said religious organizations, delving into all the ins and outs, the nitty-gritty of how said churches have conducted themselves over the past half century. That is quite, perfectly understandable, especially in view of how upset and outraged many of them were made by the last Labour Government's ongoing 'progressive' social legislation - though at the same time a large number of liberal churches were foremost in actively supporting said reforms.
Moreover, for P.M. Ardern - quite unlike former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark, it would seem - haled from a church/'Christian' background (though of course many evangelical believers and orthodox churches still regard the Mormons as a 'cult'), and so has an understandable personal stance ('skin in the game' so to speak) in the matter. And knows that, as I referred to a little earlier, sufficient offence and umbrage has already been given in recent years to said Christian community, and moreover is sure to come from the new Government, especially as the euthanasia and abortion overhauls are progressed during its first (or second) term.
The problem for Ardern and her government here, is that, having been made abundantly aware on numerous occasions over recent weeks and months (on RNZ National's Morning Report especially) - in relation to the commission of inquiry to be headed by former Governor General Sir Annan Satchanan - there's absolutely no good reason - no reasonable argument whatsoever - for restricting the mandate of said commission to only state-run institutions. No, absolutely none whatsoever.
Abuse, wherever it occurs, is an absolute scourge and knows no arbitrary physical bounds. Ever.
Sunday, May 6, 2018
Good on ya, Paddy Gower: A Well (even Superbly) Handled Scoop on Gloriavale
In sharp and distinct contrast to Lisa Owen - especially of late - I'd like to heartily commend a much-overlooked and often underrated tele-broadcaster, as it so transpires another TV3, now Newshub Nation, political commentator/correspondent: the redoubtable Paddy Gower.
Admittedly often mistaken for ye proverbial cheshire cat for his inimitable grin - or a budding child chess champion for his sheer inability not to insert a know-it-all smirk into any and every story he's involved with, or in which he feels he has the 'special goods', the inside scoop on secret proceedings - Gower's special Newshub Nation 6 p.m. report the other night (Tuesday, May 6th, I believe) was in verity 'one out of the box'.
In what was an extensive piece of investigative journalism - which had obviously taken a lot of blood, sweat and tears to produce - upon the now infamous *Gloriavale Christian community on New Zealand's West Coast, Gower made it clear that these days he is well and truly the adult journalist in the room amidst a vast field - a veritable school - of rank amateurs. At least on television.
In complete contradistinction to the extensive coverage previously given during the days of Campbell Live - especially from, I would argue (and any fellow Christians I've discussed the matter with have concurred), a somewhat jaded, cynical, inherently anti-Christian bias - Gower provides a very fair and balanced approach. (Here I will limit myself to canvassing his treatment of the head honcho and the community as a whole.)
As far as the overall community is concerned, Gower readily and generously conceded that the vast majority of residents - especially (apparently) beautifully innocent children looking as if they've come out of a reworked version of Sound of Music or a Dutch tale - were eminently good and decent folk.
As for the community's 'main man', their leader, **'Hopeful Christian', despite giving yet another unvarnished account of this man's dealings not only with the visiting media but moreover and far more concerningly with those residents who from time to time have actively dissented from the basic narrative that the community reverberates to (and lives according to), Gower yet gave a certain measure of respect, or let's just say due deference, to 'Hopeful' on account of the sheer position he holds within Gloriavale; and thus is 'endowed with' by its 550-some residents.
Though utterly undeserving, in the quite understandable view of ye average NZ citizen looking on, and rather askance, of any commendation whatsoever - in light of his heavy-handed approach to all manner of dissent and dissenters in said community over any number of years apparently - Paddy Gower makes a nuanced tweak to this general narrative (which no doubt he otherwise fully subscribes to). And the reason I'm singling this out is due to its relevance to all manner of other situations in especially modern Western society.
It is essentially the difference between the particular office-holder (at any one moment in history) and the actual institution s/he happens to lead. And thus between the honour and esteem rightly and properly accruing - hopefully! - to the institution itself, even when that organization, which may well be political or governmental in nature, is headed by a complete buffoon or imbecile. Yes, no great imagination is required as to at least one pertinent application in our current geo-political world!
It is interestingly a quality that the man who was reputably the greatest and most respected (not to mention popular) of the pre-Christian era kingdoms of Israel and Judah had in literal spades. (Perhaps one of the many reasons he was considered a wonderful type of Jesus Christ, being given that rarest of commendations: 'a man after God's own heart'.) Of course I refer to the great King David (who naturally I've a certain degree of partiality to, if regrettably lacking in the personal warmth (and hence popularity) and charisma/personal magnetism which made him so beloved to his own countrymen and women - if not to his envious first wife Michal!
To what in David's life here do I allude, and how does Paddy Gower exemplify that in regards to Hopeful Christian? Twice David, ever on the run (for 13 years all up) from the murderous hatred of the intensely envious symbolically deposed (yet still reigning) then King Saul, had Saul right in his power: once when Saul was relieving himself, supposedly privately, in a cave wherein David and his men were holed up!, David's men urged him to get the job over and done with once and for all and finish Saul off for good now he was finally in his grip, and a second time when David and his men encountered Saul asleep around a campfire.
And both times David responded to his bloodthirsty loyalists in this way: "The LORD forbid that I should do this thing to my master, the LORD's anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the LORD." And once he adds: "For who can stretch out his hand against the LORD's anointed, and be guiltless?"
*Coincidentally (though my life's ever been full of them), I picked up a tome at a favourite second-hand shop just two days later, Daughter of Gloriavale: My Life in a Religious Cult (by Lilia Tarawa); and almost purchased another, Trust No One, about abuse (of all sorts, especially sexual and physical, but also psychological) in state-run institutions, I believe in the United Kingdom.
**A misnomer is ever there were one! Though I'm quite familiar with the classic tale by John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress, and moreover the character therein from whom he takes his name, Gloriavale's head honcho appears anything but a bringer of hope much less the love Jesus often denoted would be the hallmark, the lingua franca, of His earthly disciples.
Admittedly often mistaken for ye proverbial cheshire cat for his inimitable grin - or a budding child chess champion for his sheer inability not to insert a know-it-all smirk into any and every story he's involved with, or in which he feels he has the 'special goods', the inside scoop on secret proceedings - Gower's special Newshub Nation 6 p.m. report the other night (Tuesday, May 6th, I believe) was in verity 'one out of the box'.
In what was an extensive piece of investigative journalism - which had obviously taken a lot of blood, sweat and tears to produce - upon the now infamous *Gloriavale Christian community on New Zealand's West Coast, Gower made it clear that these days he is well and truly the adult journalist in the room amidst a vast field - a veritable school - of rank amateurs. At least on television.
In complete contradistinction to the extensive coverage previously given during the days of Campbell Live - especially from, I would argue (and any fellow Christians I've discussed the matter with have concurred), a somewhat jaded, cynical, inherently anti-Christian bias - Gower provides a very fair and balanced approach. (Here I will limit myself to canvassing his treatment of the head honcho and the community as a whole.)
As far as the overall community is concerned, Gower readily and generously conceded that the vast majority of residents - especially (apparently) beautifully innocent children looking as if they've come out of a reworked version of Sound of Music or a Dutch tale - were eminently good and decent folk.
As for the community's 'main man', their leader, **'Hopeful Christian', despite giving yet another unvarnished account of this man's dealings not only with the visiting media but moreover and far more concerningly with those residents who from time to time have actively dissented from the basic narrative that the community reverberates to (and lives according to), Gower yet gave a certain measure of respect, or let's just say due deference, to 'Hopeful' on account of the sheer position he holds within Gloriavale; and thus is 'endowed with' by its 550-some residents.
Though utterly undeserving, in the quite understandable view of ye average NZ citizen looking on, and rather askance, of any commendation whatsoever - in light of his heavy-handed approach to all manner of dissent and dissenters in said community over any number of years apparently - Paddy Gower makes a nuanced tweak to this general narrative (which no doubt he otherwise fully subscribes to). And the reason I'm singling this out is due to its relevance to all manner of other situations in especially modern Western society.
It is essentially the difference between the particular office-holder (at any one moment in history) and the actual institution s/he happens to lead. And thus between the honour and esteem rightly and properly accruing - hopefully! - to the institution itself, even when that organization, which may well be political or governmental in nature, is headed by a complete buffoon or imbecile. Yes, no great imagination is required as to at least one pertinent application in our current geo-political world!
It is interestingly a quality that the man who was reputably the greatest and most respected (not to mention popular) of the pre-Christian era kingdoms of Israel and Judah had in literal spades. (Perhaps one of the many reasons he was considered a wonderful type of Jesus Christ, being given that rarest of commendations: 'a man after God's own heart'.) Of course I refer to the great King David (who naturally I've a certain degree of partiality to, if regrettably lacking in the personal warmth (and hence popularity) and charisma/personal magnetism which made him so beloved to his own countrymen and women - if not to his envious first wife Michal!
To what in David's life here do I allude, and how does Paddy Gower exemplify that in regards to Hopeful Christian? Twice David, ever on the run (for 13 years all up) from the murderous hatred of the intensely envious symbolically deposed (yet still reigning) then King Saul, had Saul right in his power: once when Saul was relieving himself, supposedly privately, in a cave wherein David and his men were holed up!, David's men urged him to get the job over and done with once and for all and finish Saul off for good now he was finally in his grip, and a second time when David and his men encountered Saul asleep around a campfire.
And both times David responded to his bloodthirsty loyalists in this way: "The LORD forbid that I should do this thing to my master, the LORD's anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the LORD." And once he adds: "For who can stretch out his hand against the LORD's anointed, and be guiltless?"
*Coincidentally (though my life's ever been full of them), I picked up a tome at a favourite second-hand shop just two days later, Daughter of Gloriavale: My Life in a Religious Cult (by Lilia Tarawa); and almost purchased another, Trust No One, about abuse (of all sorts, especially sexual and physical, but also psychological) in state-run institutions, I believe in the United Kingdom.
**A misnomer is ever there were one! Though I'm quite familiar with the classic tale by John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress, and moreover the character therein from whom he takes his name, Gloriavale's head honcho appears anything but a bringer of hope much less the love Jesus often denoted would be the hallmark, the lingua franca, of His earthly disciples.
Lisa Owen: NZ Media Inc Interrogator Extraordinaire
(Regrettably a much-deferred - and for me, unusually brief - opinion piece.)
It would seem that Newshub Nation's main interviewer over recent years, the (commendably) painstakingly diligent and thoroughly issue-conversant - let's give her all due credit - Lisa Owen, somewhere along the way missed her true calling in life: that of appointment to the modern-day *(Office of the) 'Inquisition', i.e. The Vatican's Department of Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy.
The interviews upon 'the Nation' which elicit this judgment upon my part are numerous, and in recent times include one with the P.M. and another with the two then would-be Green co-leaders. Though no big fan of either Marama Davidson or Julie-Ann Genter, and someone moreover who believes Genter - admittedly, like the rather notorious Mike Hosking - was eminently better qualified for the post than Davidson, however appealing the latter to the Greens' base, they both can only be commended for their admirably self-restrained responses to Lisa Owen.
Variously resembling anything and everything from stunned to agasp to absolutely horror-stricken at Owen's take-no-prisoners, lay it on the line, in-your-face, "I'm waiting on ya'll, now stop messin' around with me!" demeanour and approach, they could have taken a leaf out of the book from a subsequent interview Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had with the Newshub Nation host. With measured grace - though I've since misplaced the exact comments being made - Ardern quickly cut Owen down to size and put her back in her place by simply and matter-of-factly, in her own inimitable 'Now let's stop being foolish kiddies, okay?' style, effectively dismissing the entire line of questioning with a frank and firm, gentle but unyielding "No!" or the like, which simply could not be argued further with. Owen had finally met her match and seemingly immediately realized as much.
*Known by various names at different times, what was up until 1908 the 'Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition' then became simply the 'Holy Office' until 1965, and thereafter has been the 'Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith'. All this according to the 'World Socialist Website', which I quote from in my treatise-length 2013 exposition 'Pope Francis (the First): A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, or "surprise, surprise": A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing?'
It would seem that Newshub Nation's main interviewer over recent years, the (commendably) painstakingly diligent and thoroughly issue-conversant - let's give her all due credit - Lisa Owen, somewhere along the way missed her true calling in life: that of appointment to the modern-day *(Office of the) 'Inquisition', i.e. The Vatican's Department of Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy.
The interviews upon 'the Nation' which elicit this judgment upon my part are numerous, and in recent times include one with the P.M. and another with the two then would-be Green co-leaders. Though no big fan of either Marama Davidson or Julie-Ann Genter, and someone moreover who believes Genter - admittedly, like the rather notorious Mike Hosking - was eminently better qualified for the post than Davidson, however appealing the latter to the Greens' base, they both can only be commended for their admirably self-restrained responses to Lisa Owen.
Variously resembling anything and everything from stunned to agasp to absolutely horror-stricken at Owen's take-no-prisoners, lay it on the line, in-your-face, "I'm waiting on ya'll, now stop messin' around with me!" demeanour and approach, they could have taken a leaf out of the book from a subsequent interview Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had with the Newshub Nation host. With measured grace - though I've since misplaced the exact comments being made - Ardern quickly cut Owen down to size and put her back in her place by simply and matter-of-factly, in her own inimitable 'Now let's stop being foolish kiddies, okay?' style, effectively dismissing the entire line of questioning with a frank and firm, gentle but unyielding "No!" or the like, which simply could not be argued further with. Owen had finally met her match and seemingly immediately realized as much.
*Known by various names at different times, what was up until 1908 the 'Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition' then became simply the 'Holy Office' until 1965, and thereafter has been the 'Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith'. All this according to the 'World Socialist Website', which I quote from in my treatise-length 2013 exposition 'Pope Francis (the First): A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, or "surprise, surprise": A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing?'
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
Yemen: Nothing New Under the Sun - Just As The Epitome of Wisdom, King Solomon Might've Put Things
"Next I observed all the oppression and sadness throughout the earth - the tears of the oppressed, and no one helping them, while on the side of their oppressors were powerful allies." (The Living Bible.)
"I looked again and saw all the oppression that goes on in the world; there were the oppressed in tears, with no one to redress their wrongs - tyrants in power, and the oppressed in tears, with no one to redress their wrongs!" (James Moffatt: A New Translation of the Bible.)
Those two versions of Ecclesiastes 4:1 pretty well say it all, don't they...not only about the awful humanitarian tragedy daily unfolding in Yemen, but of course in Syria - Afghanistan - Iraq et al? No, the world has learnt very little down the years - decades - centuries - millennia, and far from humanity ever progressing onward and upward, as we're so often told, it simply repeats the old patterns so familiar to human nature. There is indeed hardly anything truly 'new under the sun'.
So once again, while celebrating wedding parties and other civilians simply go about their day-to-day lives 'minding their own business', they are periodically blown to smithereens and otherwise gunned down, picked off by drones, or simply gassed out of existence in whatever gruesome fashion happens to be currently in vogue with those who sadistically could care less about the lives of innocents and other 'pawns' in the path of their murderous (but ever-'justifiable') ambitions, plans and purposes.
And so the world looks on impotently and stands idly by whilst yet another ghastly episode of 'man's inhumanity to man' unfolds on the Saudi Peninsula, where vast multitudes in the tiny nation of Yemen die every day of cholera; and vast swathes of others are mown down as 'collateral damage' in the war.
This occurs as often as not via Western military aid to the brutal Saudi (Arabian) regime/war machine...whose 'misdeeds' are increasingly overlooked and apparently condoned - turned the proverbial blind eye to - supposedly, if we're to believe the mainstream media's only other coverage of those two nations, because the Saudi regime is undergoing radical reforms in its monarchy: i.e. it has a bright new (modernist, 'progressive') 'thing' as its leader. Hey, they're even now allowing women to drive on their roads!
And to think that New Zealand Inc - c/o its Government of the day (only 3-4 years ago or so) - had the effrontery (to all those values we apparently hold so very dear - as witnessed once again 'just the other day' in our annual Anzac Day commemorations) to fly our national flag at half mast upon the death of the last Saudi crown prince. Yes, all for a nation which regularly beheads its (dissenting) citizens and otherwise de-limbs them (for lesser offences) - are women still stoned for committing adultery (while the male participants get away scot-free presumably)? Doing so apparently all in the name of a religion which makes its God into a supremely unworthy representation of all that's noblest and best in life.
When, oh when, will our supposedly 'enlightened' modern-day world - c/o its supposed representatives in the United Nations et al - get its act together and do something about Yemen (and these various other 'intractable' conflicts? Not anytime soon, you can bet. No, I'm not holding my breath, either - nor will Yemen's suffering innocents be.
"Then I looked again at all the injustice that goes on in this world. The oppressed were weeping, and no one would help them. No one would help them, because their oppressors had power on their side." (The Good News Bible.)
"I looked again and saw all the oppression that goes on in the world; there were the oppressed in tears, with no one to redress their wrongs - tyrants in power, and the oppressed in tears, with no one to redress their wrongs!" (James Moffatt: A New Translation of the Bible.)
Those two versions of Ecclesiastes 4:1 pretty well say it all, don't they...not only about the awful humanitarian tragedy daily unfolding in Yemen, but of course in Syria - Afghanistan - Iraq et al? No, the world has learnt very little down the years - decades - centuries - millennia, and far from humanity ever progressing onward and upward, as we're so often told, it simply repeats the old patterns so familiar to human nature. There is indeed hardly anything truly 'new under the sun'.
So once again, while celebrating wedding parties and other civilians simply go about their day-to-day lives 'minding their own business', they are periodically blown to smithereens and otherwise gunned down, picked off by drones, or simply gassed out of existence in whatever gruesome fashion happens to be currently in vogue with those who sadistically could care less about the lives of innocents and other 'pawns' in the path of their murderous (but ever-'justifiable') ambitions, plans and purposes.
And so the world looks on impotently and stands idly by whilst yet another ghastly episode of 'man's inhumanity to man' unfolds on the Saudi Peninsula, where vast multitudes in the tiny nation of Yemen die every day of cholera; and vast swathes of others are mown down as 'collateral damage' in the war.
This occurs as often as not via Western military aid to the brutal Saudi (Arabian) regime/war machine...whose 'misdeeds' are increasingly overlooked and apparently condoned - turned the proverbial blind eye to - supposedly, if we're to believe the mainstream media's only other coverage of those two nations, because the Saudi regime is undergoing radical reforms in its monarchy: i.e. it has a bright new (modernist, 'progressive') 'thing' as its leader. Hey, they're even now allowing women to drive on their roads!
And to think that New Zealand Inc - c/o its Government of the day (only 3-4 years ago or so) - had the effrontery (to all those values we apparently hold so very dear - as witnessed once again 'just the other day' in our annual Anzac Day commemorations) to fly our national flag at half mast upon the death of the last Saudi crown prince. Yes, all for a nation which regularly beheads its (dissenting) citizens and otherwise de-limbs them (for lesser offences) - are women still stoned for committing adultery (while the male participants get away scot-free presumably)? Doing so apparently all in the name of a religion which makes its God into a supremely unworthy representation of all that's noblest and best in life.
When, oh when, will our supposedly 'enlightened' modern-day world - c/o its supposed representatives in the United Nations et al - get its act together and do something about Yemen (and these various other 'intractable' conflicts? Not anytime soon, you can bet. No, I'm not holding my breath, either - nor will Yemen's suffering innocents be.
"Then I looked again at all the injustice that goes on in this world. The oppressed were weeping, and no one would help them. No one would help them, because their oppressors had power on their side." (The Good News Bible.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)